SACD: Officially dead

[Johnny Canuck]

I guess this is the nail in the coffin for SACD:

http://www.superaudio-cd.com/

Boy, I am sure glad I spent a grand on a Denon DVD 2910 "Universal Player" so i can play the three SACD titles I have, or will ever have. Should have bought the Panasonic S97 for a third of the price.

Thank you to all the people who prefer compressed crappy audio like Mp3's over quality recordings.

Well, I guess I have my five DVD Audios to enjoy. Yay.

What a joke. I hope all you guys looking at buying a DVD player do not base your decision on SACD/DVD A compatability as you too will waste your money.



JC

 

[Sleestack]

I don't think it is officially dead. You do realize there are thousands of SACD titles available?

 

[j_garcia]

The fact that this site is closed has what to do with SACD going away?

 

[Sheep]

Did you ever think that maybe not EVERY band makes SACDs?

Its the youth that buys the most CDs, and if you don't cater to them, you're done.

SheepStar

 

[j_garcia]

Is it the bands or the labels? The label determines whether or not they even release on SACD, but I don't know if most bands go to their label and say "We want to release this album on SACD or DVD-A". I really don't need SACDs of most of the crap that is on the radio these days, and the people that are listening to that music and most of those buying it, aren't looking for something better than CD unfortunately.

 

[Sheep]

Is it the bands or the labels? The label determines whether or not they even release on SACD, but I don't know if most bands go to their label and say "We want to release this album on SACD or DVD-A". I really don't need SACDs of most of the crap that is on the radio these days, and the people that are listening to that music and most of those buying it, aren't looking for something better than CD unfortunately.

I'm sure if the band wanted to release in SACD, they could.

SheepStar

 

[rgriffin25]

From what I have seen Jazz and classical recordings are being released all the time on SACD. Which in my opinion are the only formats that need to be a higher quality.

 

[racquetman]

From what I have seen Jazz and classical recordings are being released all the time on SACD. Which in my opinion are the only formats that need to be a higher quality.

Almost any music can benefit from higher quality and/or a reinterpreted multi-channel mix. All the music I have on DVD-A sounds much better than the CD version and none of them are jazz or classical.

 

[tomd51]

From what I have seen Jazz and classical recordings are being released all the time on SACD. Which in my opinion are the only formats that need to be a higher quality.

While I agree these genres are two that greatly benefit from higher quality, multichannel recordings, there are several others that benefit as well. In fact, two of my favoite DVD-A and SACDs are Rock and Classic Rock.

While the DVD-A and SACD formats might wither away in the future, I'm going to enjoy them here and now while I can.... -TD

 

[outsider]

I'd like to place some blame on that craptastic new format called DualDisc.

It's a CD, and a DVD, but can't be played in most common players.

YAY!!

Thank you so much record industry.


realistically, I don't think SACD or DVD-A are going to die off. They'll just be there, in limited quantity.
And rgriffin25, I disagree. I, along with several others, think ALL genres can benefit from higher resolution.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

I am not a jazz or classical fan. Guess I am S.O.L.

I agree with the poster who said today's music is not worth being released on SACD. Well, for the most part. There is some new good stuff. Not much. I would like to see some more rock on high rez, old or new. I was so desperate for ANYTHING on SACD I bought Bon Jovi "This Left Feels Right" to go along with the only two other titles i thought were worth paying the money for, Dire Straits "Brothers IN Arms" and Pink Floyd DSOTM.

Dualdisc is awful. It's high compressed, low quality surround sound, disguised as DVD Audio.

The link I posted shows that Sony's SACD web site is linking to something else as they no longer up and running. Shows that Sony is even given up the effort of running a web page for the dead format.

My post was merely to state that potential consumers of a "universal player" should not waste their money so they can play the rare titles available. Besides, as good as DSOTM or Brothers in Arms is, it's not worth the extra half a grand to play them a few times a year. maybe if I was into jazz, I would think differently. It was also to express my disappointment with the industry for not giving us more choices, and in a way, to express my own disappointment for being gullable from reading here how great SACD was and how I just had to get that awesome Denon 2910 because it plays everything!!! (doesn't even play DivX which even the cheapest $100 player does...but DivX is not good quality you say?..not the point..should have the option in a $1000 player).

Maybe my post should have read "Rock Fans, Don't waste your money on a universal player" and should have read what kind of music was available before wasting my money. Then again, I was hopeful, like we all were , that more titles were forthcoming. I even heard Pink Floyd was working on "Wish You Were Here" on SACD but we have all seen how Pink Floyd takes their sweet old time getting things out (Pulse was delayed yet again, for the 5th time at least)

The Panasonic S97 got better reviews than the Denon 2910 for video. It plays DVD Audio. It does not play SACD. But for a few titles worth buying, you see my point. And with BluRay and HD DVD around the corner, the "universal player" will die soon along with SACD. My Denon 2910 will be as good as an 8 Track player in about 2-3 years as will most DVD players today but at least I can stop someone from spending more than they should for something not worth the return and basing their decision on a player that can play SACD, a dead format.

JC

 

[Johnd]

I am not a jazz or classical fan. Guess I am S.O.L.

While classical and jazz are the predominant genres recorded in sacd, there are a number of rock (you mentioned a few of the best) and blues sacd's well worthy of an sacd purchase (John Coltrane and Miles Davis have a ton of sacd's out there). Sacd will never be "dead" for those that purchase the discs and take care of them. I guess it's what you're into and if you appreciate multichannel music.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Maybe my musical taste is not as wide as others and that is the problem.

I prefer popular music. Popular is what the masses want, that's why it is "popular". So why wouldn't the record companies offer titles of popular music in a high rez format so the masses will buy it?

While some artists would sound ridiculous in surround sound (AC/DC comes to mind) I would like to see more artists like Pink Floyd, Coldplay, U2, Michael Buble, just to name a few, available in surround sound.

The Doors, Boston,and Aerosmith in surround sounds stupid. I have The Doors LA Woman on DVD A and it is not a surround sound album.

 

[Johnd]

I know what you're saying, and agree that it would be nice to have more choices in sacd.

But that's the rub, isn't it? Manufacturers offer different formats for a wider market share, but with so many choices available (in this case cd, dvd-a, sacd, as well as internet and xm), obviously not everyone would ever own an sacd player. So the artists and producers have to make a deliberate choice on whether or not it would be profitable to re-engineer their music (since the default is cd...at least for now). I say research, listen, and then buy up those sacd's that you want before production really narrows to "just" jazz and classical. Happy listening (in 5.1).

 

[tomd51]

Er 'em...

Let me get this straight. You mention Michael Buble in the same breath as Pink Floyd and U2, yet L.A. Woman sounds stupid in multichannel format?!?? C'mon now...

Any bad multichannel mix will sound bad, most good ones will sound good. Then again, if the artist themselves suck out loud, there's only so much a good engineer can do with them.

Any live music you hear is a multichannel mix (e.g. surround), so by that logic, The Doors, Boston and Aerosmith would sound stupid? I must be missing what you're saying, 'cause I'm not getting it... -TD

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Live mixes usually have the crowd noise in the rear channels. The music is up front where it belongs.

Music that sounds good in surround would be stuff with sound effects, like Pink Floyd, Dire Straits. Michael Buble was mentioned as he has an orchestra accompanying him and that would sound good in surround with all the different instruments. Not even a close comparison to The Doors (one of my favorite bands BTW) LA Woman, recorded in 1968 with absolutely no use for a 5.1 mix.

As an American, do you know who Michael Buble even is? He's not well known anywhere outside of Canada from what I understand. He's not a rocker like the other bands I mentioned. He just came to mind as he is one of the artists out today that is half decent compared to all the fluff you hear.

I am not the only one to say The Doors LA Woman DVD A is poor. I have yet to hear ANYONE say it's a good mix. Like BTO (Not Fragile is unaminously the worst DVD A ever made), or Foreigner. Stupid stupid stupid! Who wants to listen to Foreigner in surround sound? A complete waste.

And if there was ANYTHING and I mean ANYTHING I wanted out there on SACD I would have it by now. That's my point. I WANT TO SCOOP UP WHAT ROCK I CAN but there isn't a thing worth buying and I will not pay $40 for Boston's first album, a great album, but I haven't listened to it in a few years (I have 1400 +CD's)so what makes me think having the SACD will change that? Aerosmith recordings, since and including Pump, are possibly the poorest quality recordings I have ever heard, so much treble, so tinny (Love in An Elevator is the worst sounding song I have ever heard hands down), I could not imagine them sounding good on SACD.

JC

 

[Geno]

You're absolutely right about "popular" music being mostly absent on the hi-rez formats, but to those of us who like "unpopular" music (jazz, classical), there's a ton of great (to us, anyway) stuff out there. I've got several DTS surround rock/pop discs that sound great to me. You've got to put the market for rock/pop into context - the vast majority of them are clueless about good audio, so that market for hi-rez is mostly non-existent. The record companies only make what sells. Sadly, 64K MP3 is what sells.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

exactly Geno. You hit the nail on the head.

I have a few DTS discs. Police Greatest Hits is pretty good and so is Eagles HFO.

Maybe I should become a true "audiophile" as guys I know who have the best equipment and those who work in very high end stores don't listen to mutichannel audio. In fact, they listen to good ol LP's with their tube amps. 2channel only.

JC

 

[tomd51]

Sorry Johnny, I don't think I explained myself very well earlier...

What I meant was that any live show you attend, the mix is not going to be the same for all monitors for the crowd and the mixing engineer(s) can decide to change this on the fly, sending different instruments/mic output signals to different monitors. With this in mind, live music (not recorded live music) is multichannel, in a sense...

I agree that songs with sound effects have greater impact in multichannel formats, but I have quite a few DVD-As and SACDs that are well mixed and are quite appropriate for multichannel use. Some of these are:

Donald Fagen - The Nightfly
Jeff Beck - Blow By Blow
The Allman Brothers Band - Live At The Fillmore East
Steely Dan - Two Against Nature
Pink Floyd - Dark Side Of The Moon
Grover Washington, Jr.- Winelight

Other thank DSOTM, I don't believe any of these have sound effects, yet all are well engineered and have great instrument placement for each of the channels. I suppose what genre of music is mixed in a multichannel format is highly subjective and debatable, but I've been pleased w/about 80% of my multichannel purchases to this point. Not all music can substancially benefit from multichannel mixes, but quite a few of them shine in this format.

I am aware of Michael Buble and while he does have a great voice, he's most definitely not my cup of tea. As for Canadian bands, I would give my left arm to hear some of Rush's material released in multichannel format. Something from Our Lady Peace, Triumph, Bruce Cockburn wouldn't be too bad, either.

I certainly can't disagree with you that $40 for an album released 30+years ago and is readily available (e.g., not an EU import, limited release, etc.) on other formats is way too much, it absolutely is. I'd like to buy the Amadeus soundtrack on SACD, but this also runs $40 and is only a two channel mix, so that ain't happenin' in my lifetime.

Strange that you mentioned L.A. Woman is a poor multichannel mix and that the Police's Greatest hits is pretty good. I've heard just the opposite about both, love both of these bands and think L.A. Woman is actually a well engineered mix. The fact that BTO and Foreigner have poor MC offerings doesn't necessarily mean all artists of a particular genre (Classic Rock, Alternative Rock, etc.) shouldn't be offered. If they came out with a few Led Zeppelin albums in MC format, I couldn't get it fast enough. Same goes for The Who (besides 'Tommy', which is already available), Rolling Stones, Supertramp, Heart, Elvis Costello and a few others... -TD

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Rush., Led Zeppelin, and Supertramp would be great on SACD!

How about Crime of the Century on SACD?? Wow that would be something.

And Rush, Moving Pictures.