The ignorance of SACD & DVD-A marketing idiots....

Let's to make a new format fail...well:..

1. Make it cost less people will buy the
discs....that way you won't be able to make up the R&D
in volume.

2. Make sure that it is either hard or costly for a
equipment manufacture to use the format in their gear.

3. And thank you DVD-A.....make the case a new/strange
size so that the case will not fit into most Buyer's
storage units/racks.

And please add any of your thoughts.... Am I unhappy with this all.....hell yes....both formats are better...and I have my favorite.... And thank you to the folks that developed these formats....but Sony and all you all of your marketing people...
There is a lot of thinking that Blue_ray will be next: 2 and 3 certainly apply while prices on discs are coming down.

The main issue is that streaming and internet downloads of Movies will also become more the norm just as it has for high-rez music.

On the other hand I have no regrets at all - computer audio has come a long way after audio manufacturers and comsumers are finally seeing potential there.

And yes - I have a favorite format too and it has nothing to do with Apple Lossless, FLAC, DVD-A, SACD or CD...and it won't go away or change anymore ;)
Sony, after creating SACD, follow by not making their own original Blue Ray players SACD compatible?
And they dropped the SACD capability from the PS3.
My Sony Blu-Ray does play SACD, both 2- and multi-channel, though there's nothing in the specs that states that. In the manual, it tells you to go to "Music Settings" and choose it, which I did and played an SACD only disc, no problem.

As far as the formats, DVD-A was flawed by having to have a monitor to easily navigate the disc. Didn't make sense at all.

I had read that one of the reasons for the failure of SACD was the cost, mandated by Sony having to pay three times the royalties, one time each for the CD layer, the 2-channel SACD layer, and the multi-channel SACD layer. Whether that is true or not, I don't know.

Having put out multi-format and single SACD discs, many people were afraid to buy SACD, having been warned SACD would not work on their CD player and the confusion of choosing the right discs.

Sony should have just made all the discs with SACD and put the capability in their players so there would be no confusion. Once people started to play Sony discs in Sony players, they would have realized how much better Sony stuff sounded.

Having said that, I'm not sure it matters anymore, since Hi-Res downloads are the future (or at least the next few years . . . who knows?).

In the meantime . . . vinyl, baby! Infinite sampling!
How about this: Distribute your SACDs to Best Buy,, but don't bother to provide and PROMOTE an advertising/marketing/sales kit for store "managers" and department employees. This way, when the hapless, but cash-flush Audiogoner shows up (who, stupidly enough, is not downloading his MP3's for free from Napster) appears and asks, "Where do I find the SACDs, please?", he is greeted all 'round by slack-jawed, blank stares reminiscent of Gomer Pyle seconds before he utters one of those classic quips like "That don't seem [sound] right..."

IF, by chance, repeating the question in various simplistic, but hopefully instructive ways finally spurs some dawning (but still nebulous) relative awareness or recognition in one of the hipper employees, hapless AGer may be informed, "Oh, THOSE... Well, I think we have SOME mixed in with the rest of the CDs." There will not, of course, be a store inventory list. Happy hunting!
In my opinion, it was a real shame that Sony dropped the ball on so many fronts when it came to SACD.

Sony Music, a different division than the hardware end of the business, should have stopped stamping CDs altogether. Instead, EVERY disc they put out should have been hybrid SACD providing the sonic benefit of the higher resolution format, with the back compatibility to play in any machine.

The hardware folks should have stopped producing CDs players across the board. At that point, ONLY build SACD players, be it home, car, or portable.

The final straw for me was when Sony Music showed up at a big annual industry event way back, and were ready to throw their support behind DVD-A. Were I CEO of Sony, anyone at Sony Music who had ANY involvement in this whatsoever and voiced even the most half-hearted support, from the lowest mailroom clerk to the top executive at that division would have been fired as quickly as they could be identified.
Don't forget Laserdisc. Pioneer came out with a video delivery system that absolutely stomped VHS & Beta.
Then they sat on their hands and watched it die.
Blockbuster started flooring a few titles for rental,
after everyone including the early adopters gave up on the format.
I'll postulate Sony Software marketing shares their philosophy with Sony Service. We're big, we know what we're doing. Take it or leave it.
So Sony should have tried to force everyone to switch to SACD whether they wanted to or not? That is so dumb I am supprised they didn't try it. After all it is what they did to LP. If you are waiting for a spark of intellegence from the music industry good luck; after 50 years I have given up hope.

I believe Sony did try to force everyone to switch to SACD. They had the option of offering hybrid SACDs instead of the SACD only versions.
I can count very few hybrid SACDs I've ever seen from Sony.
I think this was a big mistake, on their part.
I dumped my Sony SACD player.
All my SACDs sound better on my Oppo BDP-83, anyway.
Ncarv, is that a latter model Sony Blue Ray player?
Plenty of mistakes to go around.
The one success was CD. They all managed to get together and create the Cd.
Everyone got behind it and it florished.
Then later the same with DVD.
Both of those formats were gigantic successes.

I guess that went to thier collective heads, as the next set of so-called 'improvements' were only marginal, and infighting was very predominant.
First the DVD-A vs SACD battle: instead of cooperating ,various companies decided to fight it out. So BOTh were doomed to failure.
Then HD DVD vs BluRay, BluRay won, but too bad it is still a nitch format because it is not enough of a leap ahead of DVD. The lesson IMO is to succeed, a new format has to actually be much better than the previous one, and reasonably priced, and have 100% of ALL the manufacturers.
Then it might have a chance. So the fighting ours is better than theres may seem fun to some, but proves a failure in the marketplace.

One other format war no one remembers was the Laser Disc vs RCA movie disc (I do not even remember the name of the RCA system.)
The Laser disc was far better than the RCA system, and RCA nearly bankrupted themselves in the stupid moves they made with thier crappy system. (they were miffed they gave away the VCR patents they controlled via Amperex, sellingthem off the the Japanese, who made BILLIONS off the development of the VCR, so they gambled it all on the 'next best thing' and LOST, bigtime)

Finally Sony was too big and too self devisive to make SACD a success. (they got what they deserved from the karma of the Beta/VHS fiasco, where, just like the DVD-A vs SACD, and HD DVD/BluRay, Sony always thinks they are too big to have to compromise, What a joke, they can go to Hell) (they really lucked out on CD, how I do not know) One corporate division did not cooperate wih the other, and finally the chief homcho left, and the new guy is a dud. Seems he it too stupid to have ANY vision for the once great Sony, and should just go stick his head in a bucket, for all the useless mistakes Sony has made since his arrival.
Agree Sony SHOULD have just switched to exclisive SACD and CD combination discs. They had the chance to flood the market right off, but failed to do so. And then failed again when they just dropped SACD as soon as they had destroyed DVD-A.
So now, plenty of folks hate Sony. I will NOT buy Blu Ray. Screw Sony IMO. I have a Love/Hate relationship with Sony. And currently the Hate is pretty strong.
I still use my Toshiba DVD player for some of my HDCD's. To bad, I liked that format.
Seakayer, That was EXACTLY my experience in a Best Buy too. Ditto.
blu ray was a bad idea from the get go. After watching SACD and DVD-A fail, why would you think a disc based delivery system, even though better, would do well?

Download technology was in full bloom by the time BluRay came out. It's analogus to SACD vs MP3. MP3 stomped SACD, even though the quality difference was so huge.

Convenience sells.
I like this little mini rant thread. My wife bought an Acura and it has a DVD-A player in it. I went to try and buy her some and the price was thru the roof. $20-$30 and up for a stinkin' CD? No wonder the music industry is in a turmoil. Even standard CD's cost $12 and up. Movies are $25 and hundred of millions to make. What makes them so proud of their music CD's? I too have a SACD player & love the sound quality. I'am just not going to fork out the kind of money to sustain a SACD library.
Whew, I feel better now.
The Sony Blu-Ray player I have that plays SACD is a S580. Cheap and surprisingly good.

I'm a bit confused though (what else is new?). I have the player connected to my processor with a digital coax cable only. The processor shows "PCM." This is with a non-hybrid, SACD only disc (Jorma Kaukonen, "Blue Country Heart").

I called Sony support to find out how it was possible for SACD to be transmitted through a digital cable. Obviously, I didn't get a coherent answer . . . not that I really expected one. I honestly don't know what the person was trying to say. I don't think they did, either.

If anyone can explain what the deal is here, I would appreciate it. How can SACD go through a digital cable?
Ncarv, that's a current model, not one Sony released just after the introduction of SACD.
Yes, Unsound . . . SACD was out long before Blu-Ray. Did I misunderstand something?
The first few generations of Sony Blue Ray players were incapable of SACD playback.
Odd they should suddenly put SACD back. Just confirms the illogical Sony marketing. Why now, after they've killed it off?
We all know that fads are cyclic.
Remember Beta VS VHS?

Beta was clearly better, but Sony limited availability to only two other, (maybe 3) manufacturers - Sanyo and Toshiba.

JVC, on the other hand, sold licenses to pretty much every other manufacturers. The result? All the video rental stores became filled with VHS movies while Beta's wall and selection came to extermination.

Now matter how good the technology is, poor marketing will eventually sink the product line unless a manufacturer is willing to live with small sales and small niche markets.

DVD-A and SACD are just that, great technologies that never went mainstream,just like Beta, which was the better format at the time.
Ncarv, your player is converting DSD to PCM before sending it out the digital output. Only a very few, very expensive players (e.g., the top of the line Accuphase drive and DAC) output native DSD digitally - the rest covert to PCM before outputting digitally. Sony insisted on this to make copying difficult.
I think macdadtexas hit the nail on the head with "Convenience sells."

If you can't copy it and listen to it wherever you want, it's worthless in the mass-market IMO. Why did cassette beat out vinyl? Recordabity and convenience. People could make "mixed tapes" and play them at home, in the car, and on a Walkman. Even non-audiophiles knew vinyl sounded better.

Cassette stuck around for a while after CD became mainstream. When CD writers became pretty much standard issue in computers, cassette was gone almost overnight.

The disc based high-res titles can't be copied. Then again, I'm sure there's a way. Regardless of that, it can't be played anywhere but a dedicated home player. Why spend money for a new format that you can't take along with you? Why replace what you have with something that'll only see any benefit in one player at home?

Then there's the catalog of high-res music. Little if any mainstream stuff. One or two albums from the most popular bands wasn't enough to make a difference IMO. Especially when you couldn't take it with you.

Convenience sells. If it's convenient and sounds better, it'll do well. Then again, a full on home stereo is becoming a thing of the past. Computer speakers or a home theater in a box like an LG system is good enough for most people. They can't get through their heads that 2 quality channels, even connected to a TV system, sound far better than 7 garbage channels.

High-res will be an audiophile thing. Most people won't know it exists or any of the dead formats even existed. Ask a random co-worker if he/she ever heard of SACD or HDCD.

Until they get mainstream titles, the mainstream artists and producers stop clipping the hell out of the music, it becomes portable with an actual benefit (not compressed to death so it'll fit on an iPod), and hifi companies get off their rear ends and advertise so that people know Bose really isn't what Bose claims to be, high-res will be what it currently is.

Just my cynical views. It doesn't take much to make a product enticing to the masses. Practicality and marketing is all it'll really take IMO.
I really enjoyed reading this thread. I wonder how many of you listen to classical music, which I do exclusively. SACD is alive and well there, with thousands of available titles. Almost all discs have dual CD and SACD layers, so they are portable and can be copied.
Yes, but only the lower rez CD layer can be typically copied.
True, but when I'm copying a disc it is usually so that I can listen in the car or at work. The music in both cases is for background type listening
On less than top notch gear
Ncarv, Sony pretty much killed its own well-bred horse through multiple incompetencies. It's just like them to decide the carcass needs further flogging. But, as usual, who's still paying attention? ... A sliver of the audiophile population, which is a sliver of...
Bobschneider, thanks for the explanation. I thought that might be the case, but I didn't know it was possible.
I agree with those who say "Convenience Sells."
If the industry makes it convenient, a lot of people will buy it. If they make it convenient and good sounding at the same time, more folks like us will pay the premium for better quality sound.

To me, SACD and DVD-A never got off the ground as stand alone media formats and now it is too late. Computer audio is where the industry is going (convenient and good sounding). It will not be long before touch screen USB DAC's and satellite radio are the main source selections in automobiles. I will keep one CD/DVD-A player in my main system for my collection of CD's, and in the event I want to download hi-rez music to play on a physical disc (DVD-R). I suspect within a year, most of my listening will be through computer files and a USB DAC. It will not be long before we are downloading selections to a thumb drive and plugging that into our car players.
Why thumb drive, when you can reach for the clouds?
It's probably not easy to "reach for the clouds" while in your car, as he was referring to for use of the thumb drive.

Thumb drive inputs are pretty much standard on today's newest car head units, as are iPod inputs. I love using my iPod input on my Alpine deck. It's controlled by the deck like a CD changer used to, and uses the iPod's digital output. Convenience and a bit of a sonic upgrade (from the iPod's headphone output to a deck anyway).
A smart phone can reach the clouds while driving.
regarding sacd, a famous digital designer does not think highly of sacd and prefers redbook to sacd.
a famous digital designer does not think highly of sacd and prefers redbook to sacd.
and some people prefer Paris Hilton to Angelina Jolie. There's no accounting for taste.
SACD presents the same dilemma as vinyl in that the library reeks of formaldehyde. I like going back in time occasionally, but I don't want to live there.
That depends upon what you can know about where you've never really been...
That depends upon what you can know about where you've never really been...