Blindjim - I've never heard SACD but according to reviews I read it is way better than anything else being equivalent to 20bit/96kHz. The problem is that the format is dead.
(DSD as I understand is 4 bit wide SACD).
- only 5000 available titles
- expensive SACDc and players.
- impossible to copy (cannot have backup)
- cannot be stored or used in a server
(it can, but loses SACD sound advantage).
- companies are moving away from CDs altogether
(LINN stopped recording/manufacturing CDs)
I mentioned on the other thread that Century Fox was preparing DVD sales (also multilayer format) in China at about 10 juan eaquivalent to $1.25 They admitted only very small profit at this price (now we know what region code is for - to protect their profits).
Can somebody explain to me why SACD costs $30 while production + royalties is in order of a dollar. IMHO format was introduced to battle CD copying (cannot be copied - has pit modulation) and not for the sound reason (we don't represent any buying power). Later after great reviews they got greedy, selling SACDs at $30 and shot themselves in a foot.
New standard is very difficult to establish. DVD-Audio wasn't successful as well as CODE - 24bit/96kHz format (DVD)started by some artists such as John Mellencamp. It is easier to start new standard when cost of media is low - at least initially and not 2x higher.
Stereophile also said that SACD is dead in editorial column few months ago. They said that most of new Blu-Ray players don't even support SACD. I know that some support it but not sure what percentage.
HDCD was introduced for the same reason (copying protection) and is also dead.
(DSD as I understand is 4 bit wide SACD).
- only 5000 available titles
- expensive SACDc and players.
- impossible to copy (cannot have backup)
- cannot be stored or used in a server
(it can, but loses SACD sound advantage).
- companies are moving away from CDs altogether
(LINN stopped recording/manufacturing CDs)
I mentioned on the other thread that Century Fox was preparing DVD sales (also multilayer format) in China at about 10 juan eaquivalent to $1.25 They admitted only very small profit at this price (now we know what region code is for - to protect their profits).
Can somebody explain to me why SACD costs $30 while production + royalties is in order of a dollar. IMHO format was introduced to battle CD copying (cannot be copied - has pit modulation) and not for the sound reason (we don't represent any buying power). Later after great reviews they got greedy, selling SACDs at $30 and shot themselves in a foot.
New standard is very difficult to establish. DVD-Audio wasn't successful as well as CODE - 24bit/96kHz format (DVD)started by some artists such as John Mellencamp. It is easier to start new standard when cost of media is low - at least initially and not 2x higher.
Stereophile also said that SACD is dead in editorial column few months ago. They said that most of new Blu-Ray players don't even support SACD. I know that some support it but not sure what percentage.
HDCD was introduced for the same reason (copying protection) and is also dead.