I read this a few weeks ago. It seems like SACD was another format doomed by greed.
They could have made it better with 128, 256, or even 512 but didn't. It's pretty clear they made digital output impossible due to copyright fears, limiting playback to the players converter and analog outputs. Finally, instead of releasing all new recordings using the new technology and pricing it the same as CDs they used the same approach that worked with CDs. Re-release old catalogs on the new format to sell the new players, charge double for the new discs, then release new recordings once the player inventory grew enough to support it. The timing didn't work because everyone already had CD players and CD libraries by then and the SACDs didn't offer enough of an improvement for most people to justify investing in a new library and box to play it on. To most people it wasn't a revolutionary new format, it was just a more expensive CD.
That approach worked for CDs because LPs were big, fragile, consumable, and unportable, and cassettes were cassettes. CDs were perfect sound forever. You could store more in less space, take them with you in the car and to the beach, and they lasted forever (well that was the idea). SACDs looked the same as CDs, cost twice as much, and unless you had a great system and player, sounded about the same.
I still have an SACD player with a small library of discs that I also own as LPs, CDs, and downloads. My SACDs rarely get played.
They could have made it better with 128, 256, or even 512 but didn't. It's pretty clear they made digital output impossible due to copyright fears, limiting playback to the players converter and analog outputs. Finally, instead of releasing all new recordings using the new technology and pricing it the same as CDs they used the same approach that worked with CDs. Re-release old catalogs on the new format to sell the new players, charge double for the new discs, then release new recordings once the player inventory grew enough to support it. The timing didn't work because everyone already had CD players and CD libraries by then and the SACDs didn't offer enough of an improvement for most people to justify investing in a new library and box to play it on. To most people it wasn't a revolutionary new format, it was just a more expensive CD.
That approach worked for CDs because LPs were big, fragile, consumable, and unportable, and cassettes were cassettes. CDs were perfect sound forever. You could store more in less space, take them with you in the car and to the beach, and they lasted forever (well that was the idea). SACDs looked the same as CDs, cost twice as much, and unless you had a great system and player, sounded about the same.
I still have an SACD player with a small library of discs that I also own as LPs, CDs, and downloads. My SACDs rarely get played.