Why are SACD's out of print?

[panteragstk]

I think many of us here who pre-date CDs forget that most people born in the 1980s grew up with digital, and even the tape format they might have been familiar with was cassettes, which hides its mechanical aspect. I find that moving parts fascinate people under 35 years old. I've run into so many who even like mechanical self-winding watches with the transparent sapphire backs, so that they can see the gears, the flywheel, and the spring. Reel-to-reel tape is the ultimate in this regard, and having been a reel-to-reel guy for recording (I owned a Crown CX-822),I understand the fascination, but RTR tape and equipment is too rare and expensive for the mainstream. I also think that's why old receivers with mechanical tuning knobs (especially the old Marantz thumb wheel models) and the slide rule frequency indicators and mechanical tuning meters are so popular. I remember when "no moving parts" was a novelty; now moving parts are a novelty. And to the non-technical folks I think the notion of getting stereo sound from a tiny needle in a groove blows their minds. Never mind that most mainstream turntables convert to digital these days; it still looks like alien magic to them.

Never thought of it that way. Interesting take.

My first rig was a cheapo all in one that had a record player on top, and dual cassette deck underneath. My dad also let me use his old Montgomery Ward 8-track player. Really annoying when the belt came off that thing and I had to take it apart to fix it.

 

[Verdinut]

I love the 5.1 channel SACD discs. Sadly, it seems the majority of SACD discs are only two channel and don't really sound any better than a standard CD.

The quality of the sound of a SACD is limited by the quality of the original recording and mastering. You won't improve the sound of a poorly recorded file by transfering it to the SACD format. In other words, the quality of the source always controls the quality of any playback format.

 

[Verdinut]

Probably simply not enough demand and not enough money in it. There are some more reasonably priced ones than $100 but even new ones are easily $30-50 for many titles, have you checked out this place? https://store.acousticsounds.com/g/5/Pop/Rock.

You can download multich dsd files at nativedsd.com but multich rock selections are pretty much non-existent there when I've looked.

There's another store that sells SACDs, DVD-As and vinyls:

http://www.elusivedisc.com/

 

[lovinthehd]

There's another store that sells SACDs, DVD-As and vinyls:

http://www.elusivedisc.com/

Yep have bought from them as well. Also worth mentioning is discogs.com...

 

[panteragstk]

I think the 5.1 mix thing is drastically overrated. The main reason I say that is if you take say DSOTM and mix it to 5.1 all that's happening is matrixing of the original stereo mix. Sort of.

I've found that when comparing my dvd-a or sacd 5.1 mixes to what the DSU or Dts upmixers are capable of I find myself having a difficult time telling them apart. In some instances the upmix from dsu is better simply because the 5.1 mix is just bad. Obscured by clouds comes to mind for this. It just doesn't sound good. Lots of hiss. Just wasn't mastered well.

On the other hand the Steven Wilson blu- Ray's I have sound excellent because that's the way they were supposed to sound from the beginning. Big difference between that and taking an old recording and trying to make it multichannel.

 

[lovinthehd]

Still, I'll take whatever multich mixes/recordings I can get Some of the upmixers with the right music can do really well I think even without the Atmos/DTS:X upmixers (I have nothing in the ceiling....yet).

 

[baronvonellis]

I think the 5.1 mix thing is drastically overrated. The main reason I say that is if you take say DSOTM and mix it to 5.1 all that's happening is matrixing of the original stereo mix. Sort of.

I've found that when comparing my dvd-a or sacd 5.1 mixes to what the DSU or Dts upmixers are capable of I find myself having a difficult time telling them apart. In some instances the upmix from dsu is better simply because the 5.1 mix is just bad. Obscured by clouds comes to mind for this. It just doesn't sound good. Lots of hiss. Just wasn't mastered well.

On the other hand the Steven Wilson blu- Ray's I have sound excellent because that's the way they were supposed to sound from the beginning. Big difference between that and taking an old recording and trying to make it multichannel.

DSOTM 5.1 mix isn't matrixed from stereo. The album was originally recorded on 16 track tape. Those 16 tracks are then remixed to 5.1, they can be moved around in space and panned from front to back or center to left rear. In a Dolby upmix from the receiver it's not possible to have precise panning and 360 degree imaging like that.

You have Obscured by clouds in 5.1? Is it only available in a box set that is $700? That was recorded on 8 track tape I believe. It wasn't recorded as well as DSOTM, the recording was noisier. With DSOTM they recorded at Abbey Road with the best technology available at the time. There was a big leap in recording technology from the late 60's into the mid 70's. Depending on what studio a band used in the early 70's it could be better or worse. If they changed studios from one album to the next the sound quailty could change. So on Obscured by clouds you could only play with 8 tracks when panning instruments, instead of 16 tracks. There were less options available to the 5.1 remix. They could have used some noise reduction, but I guess the remix engineers chose to preserve the noise that was on the tape.

 

[Paul DS]

Don't know if there are any Beatles fans out there but in the Blu Ray movie "Help" the film has been not only restored but all the Beatles numbers have been upgrade to 5.1 surround sound. You will never hear the Beatles sound better.

 

[Verdinut]

There was a big leap in recording technology from the late 60's into the mid 70's.

No, there was not much improvement in recording technology at that time. There were excellent recordings in the late 60's and those were mastered by the best sound engineers of the time. For example the RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence labels.

At that period, between late 60's and mid 70's, IIRC the digital recording process hadn't started. The best sound tracks were those that were recorded and mastered by experienced engineers, and it's the same situation today. Many currently made recordings are mediocre because of unqualified engineers, and this also happens with classical music CDs and SACDs. A digital recording at too high levels is not forgiving and there's no way to correct it but the analog recording was forgiving to a certain extent.

IMO the DTS and DTS HD-Master audio tracks used for DVDs and Blu-ray discs are better sounding than a lot of CDs and SACDs.

 

[2channel lover]

No, there was not much improvement in recording technology at that time. There were excellent recordings in the late 60's and those were mastered by the best sound engineers of the time.
At that period, between late 60's and mid 70's, IIRC the digital recording process hadn't started. The best sound tracks were those that were recorded and mastered by experienced engineers, and it's the same situation today. Many currently made recordings are mediocre because of unqualified engineers, and this also happens with classical music CDs and SACDs. A digital recording at too high levels is not forgiving and there's no way to correct it but the analog recording was forgiving to a certain extent.

IMO the DTS and DTS HD-Master audio tracks used for DVDs and Blu-ray discs are better sounding than a lot of CDs and SACDs.

Agreed. It largely depends on who was recording it. There were some very good recordings even in the 50s...some of the Sinatra stuff as very good.

On the other hand I have some Miles Davis recordings that were just okay and were remastered...Kind Of Blue was one that benefitted from remastering and recorded in the SACD format...marketed as a multi-ch disc, it's really a 2.1 but an improvement over the CD and LP that I had.

I have a 5.1 blu ray of Adele Live at Albert Hall...granted a live recording vs a studio CD, but many of those songs on the blu-ray sound better than the CD.

 

[sven1olaf]

It seems to me that we are in a kind of "if you build it they will come," type of situation.

Mutlichannel SACD should be the standard for 5.1 recordings/masters. I would happily buy multichannel versions of all of my favorite albums...if they existed.

Of course the supply and demand curves need to show this as a successful strategy for the labels, but I believe if there was more content, there would be more buyers.

Also, the new object based surround formats are getting much better at creating surround channels, maybe we won't need multi-channel recordings for much longer.

 

[panteragstk]

DSOTM 5.1 mix isn't matrixed from stereo. The album was originally recorded on 16 track tape. Those 16 tracks are then remixed to 5.1, they can be moved around in space and panned from front to back or center to left rear. In a Dolby upmix from the receiver it's not possible to have precise panning and 360 degree imaging like that.

You have Obscured by clouds in 5.1? Is it only available in a box set that is $700? That was recorded on 8 track tape I believe. It wasn't recorded as well as DSOTM, the recording was noisier. With DSOTM they recorded at Abbey Road with the best technology available at the time. There was a big leap in recording technology from the late 60's into the mid 70's. Depending on what studio a band used in the early 70's it could be better or worse. If they changed studios from one album to the next the sound quailty could change. So on Obscured by clouds you could only play with 8 tracks when panning instruments, instead of 16 tracks. There were less options available to the 5.1 remix. They could have used some noise reduction, but I guess the remix engineers chose to preserve the noise that was on the tape.

Sorry, I keep forgetting it isn't Obscured by Clouds. I have Meddle on DVD-A. I also have Piper at the Gates of Dawn, but I don't remember how it sounded. Been a while since I've listened to it.

The Wall is pretty good on DVD-A as well as DSOTM. Money is actually what I used to see how good the upmixers really are. They intro sounds very similar to the DVD-A, but as you said it isn't perfect, but it's quite surprising how good it is.

 

[baronvonellis]

No, there was not much improvement in recording technology at that time. There were excellent recordings in the late 60's and those were mastered by the best sound engineers of the time. For example the RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence labels.

At that period, between late 60's and mid 70's, IIRC the digital recording process hadn't started. The best sound tracks were those that were recorded and mastered by experienced engineers, and it's the same situation today. Many currently made recordings are mediocre because of unqualified engineers, and this also happens with classical music CDs and SACDs. A digital recording at too high levels is not forgiving and there's no way to correct it but the analog recording was forgiving to a certain extent.

IMO the DTS and DTS HD-Master audio tracks used for DVDs and Blu-ray discs are better sounding than a lot of CDs and SACDs.

Yes, there was. Close mic Mulitrack recording was a huge leap in recording technology in the early 70's. Stuff like the Doors and the Beatles was done on 4 track tape. It had to be recorded and mixed like an essentially live recording and printed to tape live with effects and everything. They would move the muscians and instruments around the room to get the mix before printing to tape. But then you couldn't change things much later after it had been recorded. With 16 track or 24 track in the early 70's, you could mic every drum and instrument with 16-24 mics. For a guitar you could have a close mic 6 inches away and another mic of a different type 6 feet away for a room tone. Then after recording you could freely blend the close tone and room tone how you liked. Then you can have time for other overdubs on other tracks as well, and spend alot of time mixing each instrument without having to commit to any one thing. 16 tracks was a revolution in recording. Dark Side of the Moon was kind of the example album for close mic multi track recording, and what it could do.

Sure, there were good recordings in the 50's, as well.

In the 60's recording consoles had maybe 8 channels. Rupert Neve built his first 28 channel console the Neve A88 in 1970, this was a huge upgrade in recording console technology and quality. Neve's console's from the 70's are highly sought after even today for their sound quality.

The console they used on DSOTM was the EMI TG12345 , it was the first solid state console EMI made and that Abbey Road had. It had 24 mic inputs and channels along with compession and EQ for each channel. The previous console only had 8 channels and was tube based. This gave the recording a much cleaner sound, and less noise. After this most consoles would be solid state.

 

[Verdinut]

Yes, there was. Close mic Mulitrack recording was a huge leap in recording technology in the early 70's

British EMI engineer Alan Blumlein patented systems for recording stereophonic sound and surround sound on disc and film in 1933. The history of modern multitrack audio recording using magnetic tape began in 1943 with the invention of stereo tape recording, which divided the recording head into two tracks. Also, in the late 1950's Both Mercury and RCA labels recorded in three-channel stereo which was later released in the 1990's in the SACD format.

Multitrack technology was first developed in the late 1940s after the introduction of magnetic tape as a means of recording. This new medium allowed for separate recordings to be made on different parts of the tape's surface, which in turn could be played back at the same time. Multitracking was developed by the US company Ampex and through the experiments of the guitarist Les Paul. By 1954 Ampex had produced the first eight-track tape machine at Paul's request, but eight-track machines remained rare within the industry until the late 1960s.

 

[Auditor55]

I love 5.1 surround sound music, and alot of the SACD's that were made 10 years ago are out of print. Alot of the Genesis albums are very expensive used now, The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway is even $200 used! And Roxy Music - Avalon is $100 used. Many other discs are around $40-50 used. If these discs are over $100 on the used market, why don't record companies print them again? I'm sure it only costs them a dollar or less, they could make alot of money on them.

Or is it possible to download 5.1 HD audio? I've only seen websites with stereo HD audio. As far as I know, the only way to get surround audio to get actual discs..

I think Blu Ray kind put a nail in the coffin of SA-CD.

 

[Verdinut]

I think Blu Ray kind put a nail in the coffin of SA-CD.

You're right for pop and jazz, but for classical music, labels mostly European and British , are still producing many SACDs.

 

[baronvonellis]

British EMI engineer Alan Blumlein patented systems for recording stereophonic sound and surround sound on disc and film in 1933. The history of modern multitrack audio recording using magnetic tape began in 1943 with the invention of stereo tape recording, which divided the recording head into two tracks. Also, in the late 1950's Both Mercury and RCA labels recorded in three-channel stereo which was later released in the 1990's in the SACD format.

Multitrack technology was first developed in the late 1940s after the introduction of magnetic tape as a means of recording. This new medium allowed for separate recordings to be made on different parts of the tape's surface, which in turn could be played back at the same time. Multitracking was developed by the US company Ampex and through the experiments of the guitarist Les Paul. By 1954 Ampex had produced the first eight-track tape machine at Paul's request, but eight-track machines remained rare within the industry until the late 1960s.

OK, that's not what I'm referring to. Stereo recording is alot different than 24 track recording. Here is an example track list for true mulitrack recording. This is what Pink Floyd pioneered, and almost everyone recording since then does the same thing. You can't do this with even 8 track tape. The recording consoles didn't have enough channel before to do this either, and they didn't have compression and eq for 24 channels for each channel. Everyone starting in the early 70's started doing this, and it became widespread.

1- kick drum
2- snare drum
3- Left toms
4- Right toms
5- left overhead drums
6- Right overhead drums
7- room tone away from drum kit
8- bass
6- guitar close mic
7- guitar room tone
8- piano left
9- piano right
10- piano room tone
11- acoustic guitar close mic
12- acoustic guitar far mic
13- main vocals
14- harmony vocals
16- sax solo
17- organ
18- tambourine percussion

 

[sterling shoote]

I'm a big fan of 5.1 SACD. It has a breadth and depth not heard from 2 channel SACD. I also like the 3 channel Living Stereo Series SACDs. I think 5.1 SACD has a second chance, since Sony has a few Universal Players which output 5.1 via HDMI that can be decoded from most any modern AVR.

 

[sterling shoote]

No, there was not much improvement in recording technology at that time. There were excellent recordings in the late 60's and those were mastered by the best sound engineers of the time. For example the RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence labels.

At that period, between late 60's and mid 70's, IIRC the digital recording process hadn't started. The best sound tracks were those that were recorded and mastered by experienced engineers, and it's the same situation today. Many currently made recordings are mediocre because of unqualified engineers, and this also happens with classical music CDs and SACDs. A digital recording at too high levels is not forgiving and there's no way to correct it but the analog recording was forgiving to a certain extent.

IMO the DTS and DTS HD-Master audio tracks used for DVDs and Blu-ray discs are better sounding than a lot of CDs and SACDs.

I've read your posts on this topic, and, although I don't know much about it, and can prove it, I think you know which hog ate the cabbage. Here's what little I know: I think 5.1 SACD is the Daddy. I like the Living Stereo and Living Presence Series, so much that I risk buying a few discs each month from artists and music I've never heard of. And, while I've purchased a few multi-channel downloads which sound really good, like the Seattle Symphony's "Firebird", such downloads are very difficult to play gaplessly. In fact I've had to write down the sequence of actions to play the downloads to preclude a review of my OPPO, which is the only device that will accomodate the multi-channel downloads. Plus, I fear my multi-channel downloads have ZERO re-sell value as do SACDs. At any rate, it appears the record industry must be taking another look at multi-channel SACD, since the Planets are now aligned to make multi-channel SACDs so easy to enjoy from small budgets. I noticed just the other day "Dark Side of the Moon is going to be produced again in 5.1 SACD. I preordered one for myself from Acoustic Sounds.

 

[sterling shoote]

Agreed. It largely depends on who was recording it. There were some very good recordings even in the 50s...some of the Sinatra stuff as very good.

On the other hand I have some Miles Davis recordings that were just okay and were remastered...Kind Of Blue was one that benefitted from remastering and recorded in the SACD format...marketed as a multi-ch disc, it's really a 2.1 but an improvement over the CD and LP that I had.

I have a 5.1 blu ray of Adele Live at Albert Hall...granted a live recording vs a studio CD, but many of those songs on the blu-ray sound better than the CD.

I've got Kind Of Blue on SACD. I purchased it in 2000. It's labeled STEREO/Multi-Channel SACD and it is. Until I bought an OPPO UDP-205 Universal Player in Feb. of 2018 I could only enjoy the SACD in stereo from my Sony DVP-S9000ES. Now, I get 5.1 and stereo from the OPPO. The OPPO plays out to my Sony TA-P9000ES 5.1 analog multi-channel preamplifier. Reading your post, I thought I would check again for multi-channel output; and, sure enough, I've got front left/right, center, rear left/right and subwoofer action. Maybe you have a bad SACD, or your player/amplification needs to be adjusted to permit 5.1? At any rate, I can play my SACDs, stereo or multi-channel from the OPPO via direct DSD to analog or DSD to PCM to analog. If I go the DSD to PCM route, the OPPO manages 5.1 channel crossovers and volume from each speaker. With current settings, where all channels are volume matched, there's not much sound coming from the rear speakers on Kind Of Blue. There's just enough to present a sound stage which has more breadth and depth than the stereo version of Kind Of Blue. BTW, earlier today I played a Diana Krall multi-channel SACD where rear channels as well as subwoofer are more aggressive, still the sound stage is set much like I've seen it from a Diana Krall BD.