SACD & DVDA done?


It appears as though Blue Ray has all but put the nail in HDDVD's coffin. Will that end DVDA? Perhaps I'm missing something, but it appears as though even Sony is not including SACD on their Blue Ray players. Does that mean the end of SACD is soon to follow. I was sort of waiting to see which of these formats would win, even considered a Denon that could do both and HDCD. It now appears as though I should hold out for a Blue Ray player. Will Sony abandon SACD and hoist another hi rez audio format that is incompatible with older players on us. If Sony planned to continue to support SACD, you'd think they'd offer it on their Blue Ray players too, no?
unsound
DVD-A is a DVD format, not a HDDVD format, so why would there be any relationship to HD?

DVD-A should be able to survive if there's enough demand. Thank goodness we don't need Sony. DVD-A really delivers rez. I think the whole question is demand. SACD is probably dead because of the recording resrictions. I say good riddance to SACD, screwed up by Sony's manipulative management of the process.

Dave
I think the Blu-ray spec is so complicated, demanding, and dense, that it's difficult to get a Blu-ray drive to share formats with anything. The first ones couldn't even play CDs. As they work things out, the Blu-ray players appear to be able to play more formats. For example, the entry-level BDP-300 plays std. DVD, CD, and Blu-ray.

And actually, the 60- and 80-GB models of Playstation 3 play SACD as well as Blu-ray.

Pansonic's higher Blu-ray player, the DMP-BD10AK, also plays DVD-A.
There are recording labels which still produce SACD. I haven't seen a new DVD Audio release in a long time and many DVDA titles are no longer available except in the used market. I predict that Blu Ray surround sound music releases will replace both DVDA and SACD.
SACD will continue to be supported by the smaller more specialized recording studios such as channel classics and fidelis etc etc. It will not be supported by the large recording studios which are aimed at the more pedestrian consumer oriented buyer who prefers mp3's and ipods. IMO
Last I heard, the blu-ray spec did not include a provision for the SACD format. But manufacturers may still make blu-ray players that play SACDs. The spec also doesn't require blu-ray players to play DVDs, but current models do because it's still a popular format.

It's strange that the HDMI 1.3 spec calls for SACD via HDMI. Sony doesn't call for SACD on its own blu-ray players, yet the HDMI group calls for SACD on the preferred connection of blu-ray players. Weird.
SACD is a tiny niche market now, probably will be completely gone within a few years. DVD-A is dead. Blu-Ray will probably be dead quicker than DVD-A. Apple is now downloading movies and Blockbuster will start soon.
No Virginia, SACD is not dead. Many three channel hybirds will be released in the years to come of some of the great 50's, 60's and 70's jazz that were originally recorded in three channel momo. Try Miles/Blue and will be be amazed.
The PS3 will play SACDs. DVDA is almost dead with very few new discs being made.
How good is the DSD DAC in the PS3? Anyone ever used it for audio?
One big problem with SACD is the producer's need to put out crap like three-channel hybrid or quasi-surround. Some of those do indeed decode well as 2-channel, but many end up being CD-level or worse. They're catering to the AV crowd.

DVD-A does that to a degree also, but a lesser degree. The beauty of DVD-A is that it's available to home-recordists and others that want to put out low volume, high quality music. Sony ruined SACD by trying to overcontrol the format.

Dave
It's been my experience that some surround SACDs sound better than their stereo layer.
I haven't tried an SACD in a PS3. I don't own one but have installed a few. They are generally a pain in the arse to use but some folks love them.
DC, it sounds like you are just a Sony hater. Many people disliked Sony from the beginning because they were considered an outsider upstart by the other Japanese companies. Sony has always done things a little differently than the other large Japanese industries and they upset tradition. But I myself am often bewildered by some of Sony's decisions.
01-24-08: Rwwear said:
"It's been my experience that some surround SACDs sound better than their stereo layer.
...
DC, it sounds like you are just a Sony hater. Many people disliked Sony from the beginning because they were considered an outsider upstart by the other Japanese companies. Sony has always done things a little differently than the other large Japanese industries and they upset tradition. But I myself am often bewildered by some of Sony's decisions."

Good Lord, I'm not a Sony hater. I just resent when they try to "tie-up" a format by restricting its accessibility and usefulness. Apple is another that tries to control us and ruins otherwise good products. I'm more in your camp of being bewildered by their stupidity.

Anybody want a Beta video tape machine???? I've got one somewhere....

History repeats itself, again and again and again...

Dave
Dcstep wrote: "One big problem with SACD is the producer's need to put out crap like three-channel hybrid or quasi-surround. Some of those do indeed decode well as 2-channel, but many end up being CD-level or worse. They're catering to the AV crowd."

Complete nonsense. First, there are many 2channel-only SACDs. Second, even on the multichannel ones, there is a requirement for a separate stereo SACD program. Third, most multichannel SACDs have real channels for surround, not synthetic ones.

So, what do you have against 2 channel SACD tracks? ;-)

Kal
Beta was the better format and up until recently you could still get a Beta machine. I also have a Lasersdisc player and an 8 Track machine.