SACD

[Bunny]

It is not a matter of break-even points, I suspect, since big labels should have lower overhead due to economies of scale.  It is a matter of smaller firms being interested in serving smaller markets.

I suspect that SACD will be dropped by major labels like Universal and major equipment manufacturers like Sony.  We'll be left with specialty manufacturers like Marantz and boutique labels, at least until high resolution downloads become more practical.

Sony dropped SACD years ago when they "invented" the dual dvd disc. another idea that went nowhere.  Remember how those extra thick discs broke perfectly good cd and dvd players?  Btw, Sony didn't push the SACD to other music companies as a new audiophile medium so much as a new, piracy proof cd.  That's why the first SACDs Sony issued weren't hybrids; if you didn't have an SACD player, the disc wouldn't play.  Then Sony went out and killed SACD the same way they killed Betamax: They tried to keep the technology proprietary like Betamax.  That was a much better visual medium than VHS, but VHS was cheap and anyone could make a VHS player because the technology wasn't reserved for one or two (as in the case of SACD) companies in order to corner the equipment market.  The rest is history. 

Today SACD is only attractive as an audiophile medium.  Sad to say, but most people don't care about sound quality: they listen to compressed music on ipods with the stock earbuds or on the speakers of ipod docking stations, or on their home theater systems which aren't much better.  Very, very few people invest in high end audio equipment which is why SACD never caught on: Not enough people had equipment good enough to display the differences between the redbook layer and the SACD layer.  Most people don't have more than 2 speakers in their home system either, and those that invest in a "high end" multi-channel system are usually looking for small speakers that can be recessed into a ceiling or hung on a wall and a powerful subwoofer that can be hidden in a cabinet for sound effects like exploding bombs and crashing cars when they watch movies.  They want good looking equipment, but not audiophile equipment.

To further compound the problem, there are plenty of audiophiles who argue that the stereo layer on an SACD is virtually indistinguishable to the human ear from the redbook stereo layer.  That gives people another reason to pass SACD by.  It's really a sad fact, but SACD was marketed badly from the beginning, and has always been on life support. 

[flyingdutchman]

Bunny,

May I assume you value hi quality sound over MP3 quality sound?  I know, at least, that I do.  The world may be going to hell in a hand basket when it comes to overly compressed MP3 crappy sound, but I know that multichannel sound is a great leap forward when it comes to music reproduction.  When hi-rez downloads can do more of that, great.  Until then, SACD or DVD-A, and probably bluray at some point,  is really the only game in town.

[nut-job]

Bunny,

May I assume you value hi quality sound over MP3 quality sound?  I know, at least, that I do.  The world may be going to hell in a hand basket when it comes to overly compressed MP3 crappy sound, but I know that multichannel sound is a great leap forward when it comes to music reproduction.  When hi-rez downloads can do more of that, great.  Until then, SACD or DVD-A, and probably bluray at some point,  is really the only game in town.

Well. Blu-ray supports uncompressed multi-channel, so it is a natural substitute for SACD, which doesn't suffer SACD's problem of obscurity.

[Bunny]

Bunny,

May I assume you value hi quality sound over MP3 quality sound?  I know, at least, that I do.  The world may be going to hell in a hand basket when it comes to overly compressed MP3 crappy sound, but I know that multichannel sound is a great leap forward when it comes to music reproduction.  When hi-rez downloads can do more of that, great.  Until then, SACD or DVD-A, and probably bluray at some point,  is really the only game in town.

You assume correctly.  I have numerous SACDs, not all of which are "great."  I am such a nut that I even have early multitrack recordings on cds that were made with dolby technology: play them on a dvd player with dolby and you get the multichannel layers.  I believe that was something that Teldec or Telarc (one of the Tel- companies anyway) was pioneering.  If I had been old enough and had discretionary funds I would have invested in 8 track, quadraphonic, and every other enhanced audio technology ever developed.  I already have a blu-ray player and I was the first one on my block to get a widescreen HDTV (2001).  My husband became an enthusiast after the Winter Olympics of 2002. For some reason only obsure sporting events were carried live in HD, but my husband is a great fan of curling.  That's when he was hooked.  It also helped that that year our cable company also carried the Superbowl in HD format, although the rest of that channel's broadcasts were not transmitted in HD yet.

You should know that businesses use "focus groups" to research these questions.  While one person is merely an opinion, a group of people sharing the same opinions are a "trend." Thus trends, which are what they look at, are the deciding factor.  Unfortunately, trends are also the lowest common denominator.

Well. Blu-ray supports uncompressed multi-channel, so it is a natural substitute for SACD, which doesn't suffer SACD's problem of obscurity.

Blu-ray may or may not become a standard for music.  While Blu-ray does support multichannel sound, Sony hasn't yet produced any blu-ray music discs.  (I dream of BDs that can contain multitrack Mahler cycles on one disc!)  I doubt they will even begin to produce music BDs until there is more market penetration of the players, at which time I'll bet that the first music BDs will probably be albums of music videos.  Don't hold your breath waiting for a BD Ring Cycle, though it would be glorious!  Most opera videos are still only available in conventional dvd format because the sound quality is the same, and most classical lovers are not that interested in an enhanced video format.  Who needs to see how bad the make up on Placido really is?  If DVD didn't penetrate the classical market, why would anyone assume that BD will penetrate?

While we are going to talk about wasted and passed over technology like SACD, why not talk about the cd itself?  I have always been disappointed by the failure of music CDs to exploit their capacity for "info." I have a few cds that when loaded into a computer give me the name of the disc, artists, and the track titles and their times.  Every cd has the capacity to include this information encoded on it.  Most only include the CD id number.  Only imagine, all our cds could have had enhanced information: scores, lyrics and translations, album notes, etc.  Instead all of this was dropped because it was more expensive to produce a cd with the info and too few people bothered to load a cd into a computer except to "rip" the music files, which was something the record companies were fighting.

The music industry is what it is.  None of us can predict which format will catch the interest of the general public, and be adopted as standard by the companies.  What I feel in my gut is that as long as record companies can sell huge amounts of compressed music files to a happy public they will not be selling uncompressed files that take up more bandwidth and server space.  That's why I'm not selling my cd collection anytime soon.

The music business is what it is.  It's a waste of effort trying to predict which direction it will move into. It will go where it will go and we will all adjust.

[nut-job]

The music industry is what it is.  None of us can predict which format will catch the interest of the general public, and be adopted as standard by the companies.  What I feel in my gut is that as long as record companies can sell huge amounts of compressed music files to a happy public they will not be selling uncompressed files that take up more bandwidth and server space.  That's why I'm not selling my cd collection anytime soon.

The music business is what it is.  It's a waste of effort trying to predict which direction it will move into. It will go where it will go and we will all adjust.

Your diatribe makes no sense to me at all.  Who suggested anyone would sell their CD collection?  If Blu-ray has a capability for high resolution surround sound (which DVD lacks) I suspect classical labels, which are a niche market, will take advantage of it and use it to distribute surround sound audio.   The motivation would come when Blu-ray players become more common than SACD players, which will be very soon, I suspect.  Although I doubt Blu-ray will have as big a market impact as DVD, it should bridge us over to the point when high resolution downloads are more practical.

[Bunny]

Your diatribe makes no sense to me at all.  Who suggested anyone would sell their CD collection?  If Blu-ray has a capability for high resolution surround sound (which DVD lacks) I suspect classical labels, which are a niche market, will take advantage of it and use it to distribute surround sound audio.   The motivation would come when Blu-ray players become more common than SACD players, which will be very soon, I suspect.  Although I doubt Blu-ray will have as big a market impact as DVD, it should bridge us over to the point when high resolution downloads are more practical.

"Diatribe" ?!  Diatribe hasn't been defined as a prolonged discourse in a century (or two).  It is currently defined as "a bitter and abusive speech or writing" or
"ironic or satirical criticism." I certainly was not speaking ironically, nor was I speaking bitterly.  I do admit that my posts can be prolonged, but this isn't Twitter so the number of words per post isn't limited.

Where did you ever get the idea that DVD doesn't have the capacity for high resolution surround sound?  Of course it does!  Go to some of the sites that offer "studio master" quality downloads and you will see that they specifically recommend that you back up the downloads by burning them to dvd because a cd doesn't have sufficient capacity for the files.  The major difference between cd and dvd is disc capacity.  Any digital file that can be burned (or pressed) onto a cd can be burned (or pressed) onto a dvd.

My remark about selling my cd collection was a reflection on the many people I know and know of who have ripped their cds to hard drive, backed them up in lossless format on DVDs and then gone on to sell their cds to help defray the cost of this "upgrade" to their music collection.   I have one friend who is constantly telling me to put my cds onto either a Sonos music system or an Olive Hifi Music Server.  Eventually I may do something like that because I love new technology, but not yet. 

Btw, I'm not sure that Blu-Ray players will become more popular than dvd players very soon.  In order for that to happen the economy will have to recover quite a bit.  Upgrading technology is always something that gets put off when families worry about job security.

[nut-job]

Where did you ever get the idea that DVD doesn't have the capacity for high resolution surround sound?  Of course it does!  Go to some of the sites that offer "studio master" quality downloads and you will see that they specifically recommend that you back up the downloads by burning them to dvd because a cd doesn't have sufficient capacity for the files.  The major difference between cd and dvd is disc capacity.  Any digital file that can be burned (or pressed) onto a cd can be burned (or pressed) onto a dvd.

I assumed you were referring to DVD-video.  DVD-audio of course supports high resolution audio.  But DVD-audio is even deader than SACD.

[Bunny]

I assumed you were referring to DVD-video.  DVD-audio of course supports high resolution audio.  But DVD-audio is even deader than SACD.

No, I referred to the optical medium.  Both dvd-a and dvd-v are basically the same medium.  The only difference is the file format used to encode the information.

[nut-job]

No, I referred to the optical medium.  Both dvd-a and dvd-v are basically the same medium.  The only difference is the file format used to encode the information.

Yes, I am aware of that.  But having three DVD players, none of which can play a DVD audio disc at all, DVD tends to be synonymous with DVD video in my mind.  As far as I know, no uncompressed surround sound formats are supported by DVD video (only 2 channel PCM up to 96 kHz, and surround sound in Dolby Digital or DTS).

[Bunny]

Telarc experimented with cds that played in surround sound using Dolby technology.  The Lopez-Cobos Mahler cds will play in surround sound on any dvd player that can decode the Dolby layer; his Mahler 3rd is excellent! You need more than 2 speakers to hear it in surround sound.  I believe some other companies also experimented with Dolby technology as well.

DVD-A is a particular type of encoding.  If your DVD manufacturer doesn't have the license for the code, the DVD-A will not play in your DVD player.  Most of the people I know back up their music collections to dvd in FLAC or ALAC after they have put it on hard drive, however, they use the dvd as a data medium and would have to reconvert the dvds to cds in order to play them on conventional cd players.  Many universal dvd/cd players now support FLAC; players that support flac will play the dvds.

[Marc]

Don't all people have personal golden ages? I just don't think this "Hey, stop enjoying SACDs because it's a dying format"-thing just doesn't make sense to all of us.

Yes.
I'm still in love with the girl I already loved at high school (without any results) and people still grumble about it.
Wouldn't really know where she lives right now, but still, she is my eternal golden age. 0:)

About the future: when I look & listen around, it's mp3, mp4 or something like that. 256 kb/s is good enough for most people, or so it seems. Even classical music listeners who I know are happy enough with it. In my personal environment almost no one is talking about or interested in SACD or Blu-Ray.

But hey, what proof is that?
There might be still any chance for whatever golden age!

[71 dB]

About the future: when I look & listen around, it's mp3, mp4 or something like that. 256 kb/s is good enough for most people, or so it seems. Even classical music listeners who I know are happy enough with it. In my personal environment almost no one is talking about or interested in SACD or Blu-Ray.

Yes, 256 kb/s is very good but it's the support for multichannel sound that is SACD's strength.

[Marc]

Yes, 256 kb/s is very good but it's the support for multichannel sound that is SACD's strength.

Of course.
But the majority of people won't be interested in that. They buy a cheap DVD-video-surround set (great man, you can hear the bullets fly everywhere!) with actually rather bad sound. And they want compressed music-files to spare space, money and to store their music in an easy way.

I myself have a stereo hifi set, and I'm very happy with it. I have two ears, and they get nicely 'filled'.
(And I don't have the money to spend on a good modern multichannel set. And if I had the money, I'm not sure if I would use it for that purpose. I would probably buy more stereo/hybrid CD's instead.)

The music hifi industry already had the quadrophonic disaster in the seventies. Maybe history will repeat itself.

[71 dB]

Of course.
But the majority of people won't be interested in that.

Markets are diversed as are people. Some people drive Ferrari, some people drive Toyota. Some people listen to SACDs, some people listen to 128 kb/s mp3s. It's not a one product/service for all world. We can choose.

They buy a cheap DVD-video-surround set (great man, you can hear the bullets fly everywhere!) with actually rather bad sound.

I don't give a rats ass what stupid people do with their money. It's their business.

And they want compressed music-files to spare space, money and to store their music in an easy way.

Yes.

I myself have a stereo hifi set, and I'm very happy with it. I have two ears, and they get nicely 'filled'.

I'm glad you are happy. I am not anti-stereo. I just understand the potential benefits of multichannel.

(And I don't have the money to spend on a good modern multichannel set. And if I had the money, I'm not sure if I would use it for that purpose. I would probably buy more stereo/hybrid CD's instead.)

Don't worry, I enjoyed stereo-only sound for a decade before "expanding" my system. I didn't need that much money to build a high performance multichannel system because I am an acoustics engineer and I live in Finland, the country of quality loudspeakers and knowledge.

The music hifi industry already had the quadrophonic disaster in the seventies. Maybe history will repeat itself.

Disaster? The technology just wasn't ready for multichannel sound.

[prémont]

I myself have a stereo hifi set, and I'm very happy with it. I have two ears, and they get nicely 'filled'.
(And I don't have the money to spend on a good modern multichannel set. And if I had the money, I'm not sure if I would use it for that purpose. I would probably buy more stereo/hybrid CD's instead.)

This is precisely my opinion too.

And I even listen to mono recordings on my stereo hi-fi set - and enjoy them. 

[Marc]

I didn't make myself clear, I think.
I say disaster, not because of a technical or sound quality disaster, but because of an economical disaster. Hifi companies tried and still try to persuade the average music-lover to buy high rated quadrophonic or multi-channel stuff, music magazines that I sometimes read publish very enthousiastic reviews, and most of the average music-lovers just don't care. They're more quantity minded.
That's why mp3 has become such a great success, and loads of people don't even know what SACD is all about. SACD and real quality multi-channel sets will not be a success, I think. The SACD will not be the successor of the CD.

But my thoughts about this matter have got nothing to do with my opinion about the quality of these systems.

Post scriptum: You wrote some people drive Ferrari, some people drive Toyota. I would say: few people drive Ferrari, many people drive Toyota. And therefore I think the comparision isn't well chosen. Ferrari was never meant to be the successor of whatever 'average' car-type. But SACD was meant to be the successor of the CD, at least that's what all the advertisements were saying some years ago. And I think it's not working, and will not be working in the future, either.

[Marc]

This is precisely my opinion too.

And I even listen to mono recordings on my stereo hi-fi set - and enjoy them. 

Hmmm, yes. For instance: I have a stunning mono recording of Beethoven's 5th with Von Karajan and the Philharmonia Orchestra, to name but one.
Right now I'm considering to buy the organ Bach 10 CD organ set of Helmut Walcha. Good idea, you think?

[prémont]

Right now I'm considering to buy the organ Bach 10 CD organ set of Helmut Walcha. Good idea, you think?

Oh, yes, the monointegral. I own it myself, and I would not like to be without it.

[Coopmv]

Oh, yes, the monointegral. I own it myself, and I would not like to be without it.

This is the set I have ...

[71 dB]

I didn't make myself clear, I think.
I say disaster, not because of a technical or sound quality disaster, but because of an economical disaster. Hifi companies tried and still try to persuade the average music-lover to buy high rated quadrophonic or multi-channel stuff, music magazines that I sometimes read publish very enthousiastic reviews, and most of the average music-lovers just don't care.

At the time quadrophonic systems were introduced we didn't have hometheatres with surround sound. Surround sound came to movies in late 70's. The world really wasn't ready for surround sound nor had it much to offer anyway due to technological reasons.

What music magazines write about new things is what they write, mostly rubbish as you have seen.

They're more quantity minded. That's why mp3 has become such a great success, and loads of people don't even know what SACD is all about.

Yes. People have their fields of interests. Part of individual freedom which is a very important thing.

SACD and real quality multi-channel sets will not be a success, I think. The SACD will not be the successor of the CD.

Forget already the stupid things you have obviously read from music magazines. I always "knew" that SACD will be a niche product co-exitisting alongside many other sound formats. So far I have been right. I understood that SACD will never replace/kill CD, in fact it's supporting CD format thanks to hybrid discs. I didn't believe stupid magazines, I figured it out myself. That's why I have a healthy attitude in this matter.

Post scriptum: You wrote some people drive Ferrari, some people drive Toyota. I would say: few people drive Ferrari, many people drive Toyota. And therefore I think the comparision isn't well chosen. Ferrari was never meant to be the successor of whatever 'average' car-type. But SACD was meant to be the successor of the CD, at least that's what all the advertisements were saying some years ago. And I think it's not working, and will not be working in the future, either.

It's stupid to think SACD is useless because it is not the successor of CD. I feel pitty for you since you take advertisements that seriously. Don't you know what they are for?