Is SACD a dead format?

Jayctoy-I'm not anti-SACD-I have a SACD player,the Sony NS900V.My music reviews site also has a SACD section.

You are right I haven't heard a great SACD machine in detail.My Sony which cost $900 new did get decent reviews.There are plenty on here who agree with my sonic experience of SACD.I did hear the Linn Unidisk-on a quick listen I wasn't that impressed.
Anybody making this arguement seems to forget the damage mediocre players and bad pressings have done to the format amongst those interested in audio reproduction.

I have said it before if I could afford the Emm Labs/Meitner stuff I'd be in there.

I am perhaps different in that your 100 SACD collection I would probably buy that in a 8-10 month period-of all the records I enjoyed last year ONE was released on SACD.
That's what kills me.

I enjoyed my debates with Rsbeck but without being arrogant my stance that SACD would only survive as an Audiophile niche product is looking more and more likely.

Tbg, I totally agree with your video and computer driven assesment, especially video(the more direct effect on audio at this time.) Here again, everyone wants that convinence of an all-in-one system.
I have talked to local dealers and without the video side and all that, they would be dead as a business.
You know, 2-ch was really developed in small garages and small niche businesses. It was about the product then. Maybe as this segment retreats, we can go back to the true designers who are in it for the sound and get away from this integration crap. It is depressing to me. I'm old school with those old school values. I guess I'm just sentimental to those great years of audio.

Still deader than disco,not referring to quality,just everything else associated,software,hardware,marketing[read price]and especially availability.Anyone deep into music needs 10,000 to crop 100.Thats 1 out of 100,thats me at the store,YMMV,Bob

Bigtee...Yep. I also am "sentimental to those great years of audio" when I, as a college student could afford a SOTA system. The equipment was often built, not in someone's garage, but on our own kitchen tables.

Based on the comments from Bigtee and Eldartford, it makes me wonder if the current state of [b]commercial[/b] high-end is just a generational anomaly? It seems that high-end may be retreating its [b]DIY roots[/b]. Which isn't really a bad thing. I can't afford to go to a B&M store and plunk down $4k or more on a component. I value competent designs, good sonic performance, good value, and good reliability.

SACD is likely still born unless you are looking for analog replacements with unamplified acoustic music (Read: Classical, Jazz, and Folk/Ethnic). Or reissues of rock/pop past recordings targeted to "baby boomers" as analog replacements. SACD has always been dead as far as new electronic music recordings are concerned.

Except for new classical recordings, the future or current and new recordings will likely hold new 1. redbook, 2. mp3 (and/or DVD or its replacement), and (in some cases) 3. vinyl LP. It's a shame, since I would purchase ALL of my digital on SACD (single player or hybrid, doesn't matter) if I could. But I can't. Grrr.

What really gets me is when "they" overprocess a redbook CD and sqash the life/purity/dynamics out of it. That's very sad. something is wrong people when 320kbps (equivalent) mp3, 16/44.1 redbook CD, and a (compressed) Dolby Digital 5.1 recording all sound the same. In lots of cases we aren't getting the full resolution capabilities of 16/44.1!! It's more like a mp3 "upsampled" to redbook. So sad.