To be perfectly honest...I have never been thrilled about analog or current redbood playback ...they both have drawbacks...not surprisingly...the majority of the analog community has dismissed SACD as another "smoke and mirrors" digital marketing campaign...and surprisingly....resistance to SACD has come from the elite digital hi-end that has invested a tidy sum in DACs,transports,and software...and scorns any kind of universal hi-rez machine...they have called SACD a "marginal" improvement at best...but aren't all upgrades,to a cetain extent, marginal? an improvement is an improvement in my book...the difference between a $500 intergrated vs. a $1500 unit is marginal...audible but marginal...the difference between a $500 Cd player and a $1500 rig is marginal...again...audible...but marginal...
the law of diminishing returns is very prevelent in audio gear...regardless of the format outcome...I will add a decent TT to my system...and hopefully...an expanded SACD collection... |
Does anyone doubt that the masses will prefer to listen to their favorite music while watching video of the band performing at the same time? This is why dvd-a will prevail in the long run. Audiophiles never have and never will drive the market. SACD just doesn't offer the quantum leap that cd offered over vinyl to be successful in the marketplace. I remember when cd was introduced, the average person experienced a huge jump in sound quality and convenience from the integrated tt, radio, cassette players that accounted for 95% of the equipment in use. As far as sacd finding a niche market, why would even an audiophile forgo the video option dvd-a offers if the sound of the two mediums is essentially equal? The future is about integration of home theater, audio and computers/internet access. SACD doesn't have a place in that vision. |
Trey, thanks for the follow up. |
Leaving vinyl out of it for the moment, I have had SACD and CD players, and felt that SACD was significantly better(comparing equally priced components). If I was just starting out, and assembling a collection of digital software, I'd rather use SACD, if I could get the titles I wanted, which wasn't the case. I think that the low selection of titles is hurting SACD more than anything else. The sonic improvements are there, even if some consider it small. And I agree with Phasecorrect, that the majority of opposition to hi-rez formats is coming from the CD contingent, for whatever reason. I really did not expect that. I expected the CD folks to jump in with both feet. I mean there is no obsolescence, you can still play the CDs on those machines. The smaller makers will not get into it, if they see all the digital folks "digging their heels in" in opposition to them. |
Why would an audiophile not want DVDA? Personally, I would have to more then double the cost of an already very expensive, to me, 2ch setup, which is the best I can afford in stereo mode. Had I spread that thinly out over 5 channels, the sound would be very poor in comparison. I don't watch television, watch maybe a DVD a month and have no interest in HT surround, as many folks here also feel. Anyways, in 2ch I have better "surrounding" sound with movies then many consumer grade surround setups I've heard, good 2ch reporduction does that. In short, I really do not want to lay out the green for the extra channels, however regarding a superior 2ch meduim, now there's something I would invest in, should the medium become heavily supported and be portable.... |
Tony brings up a good point...the real mass market future in digital audio is...for better or worse... the video
componet and multi-sound...that is what will "drive" the consumer's decision to leave redbook behind...again ...the irony being the latest digital audio advancement will be awarded to a large % of the public that really could care less...DVD-a/DVDs would appear to have the edge in this department...audiophiles are at times too "insular" in their thinking...myself included....anybody know...does SACD have the capabilities to reproduce digital images? |
Video drives the audio/video market today, who knows about tomorrow; people could turn and be more excited about music in the future. |
Socrates, I too have no interest in multi-channel music, but it's way too early to assume that dvd-a will not have 2 channel capability. The whole "next digital" medium thing is still in an evolutionary phase and I doubt we'll see the final version for quite some time. In any event, the point is that audiophiles will not decide what the next medium will be. We'll have to live with whatever the majority decides and make the best of our options... just like what happened with cd over the last 20 years. |
If anything...the public has already made their choice...and with success of the ultra-compressed MP3 format,A/V receivers, and CD burners...the quality of sound has taken a back seat...convenience,portability,compatability,and cost are the driving factors...this is both an exciting and frustrating time for 2-channel audiophiles with digital front ends... |
At the risk of being redundant my personal biggest gripe is the lack of a digital output. Not for recording purposes. It denies the opportunity for uncompromised digital room correction. I think this is the area that may be the biggest boon to audiophiles. |
I can't help but believe that DVD-A and SACD are a digital "stopgag" for the next truly revolutionary product. To make an analogy, I bought my very first laserdisc player in 1989 and I remember having to go to high-end audio stores to buy laserdisc movies in the "early years". There was no question that the picture and sound were better AND the LD players played CD's - it seemed like a no-brainer that it would catch on. It took a looong time but finally the software became more readily available and a few local Blockbusters had a limited selection to rent - and the next thing you know about .75% of the households in America had one!. The fact that they were expensive, large (the size of an LP) and scarce always kept LD a niche market. When DVD came along it killed LD practically overnight! The fact remained that LD was the BEST format you could enjoy a movie on for about 10 years - or settle for VHS! I believe DVD-A and SACD will serve the same niche market unless they increase the number of titles, make them readilly available and affordable and release titles from popular bands! I find it crazy that out of 580 SACD titles I only want to own 7 or 8 and out of the approx 350 DVD- titles, I only want to own 12-15 (a better % anyway). If the studios looked over their best selling artists of the last 40 years, I bet they only have (maybe) one title that they have put out on SACD or DVD-A so far. My guess is they will piddle out about 5 titles a year worth owning - in either format. And while I am "thinking" about the future, don't be suprised if in 5 years we have a digital scheme that is small as an MP3 and has even better resolution than DVD-A OR SACD, utilizing better compression techniques and blue laser technology. Perhaps the next thing that will really catch on with consumers will be a DVD player that plays High Definition DVD AND the "next great" digital audio format. We shall see... In the meantime you can grow old wishing and waiting for it or take a chance and pick up the technolgy as I did - by having it "thrown in for free" on your next purchase of a high quality DVD video player. At least that's the way I am rationalizing it :-) - Tony |
Thanks again Twl for speaking the truth.I once not long ago sat in a stereo shop listening to all the top line naim audio equipment and an OREGON ALBUM "ANOTHER PRESENT ERA" ON CD.I then opened a never opened copy on vinyl and put it on their linn sondek arro armed helikon table and promptly wept at the difference.I purchased a capitole cd player to try and close the gap but its still oceanic.That little bone in our ear that twiddles and tweaks at air borne vibrations will always have a love affair with needles and vinyl.If someday our species no longer hears in a analogous way (my word)then maybe a digital implant will supplant this most beautiful way we experience aural ecstasy.Cheers to a great thread. |
It appears the public doesnt want a new format...and the digital hi-end doesnt either...they would rather stick with their esoteric DACs and transports...they would rather see SACD or DVD-A fail...if low and behold...they would have to settle for a universal player...this type of elitist attitude will never improve digital...as far as im concerned...they can have it...Im going vinyl... |
It's not that we don't want a new format, it's the fact that once again we are faced with two different solutions that are not compatible with each other. The failure of both formats so far is the fault of the industry, not the public. Neither side wants to commit fully because they know either one is a gamble at this point. There is not room for sacd, dvda and vinyl, and neither is replacing vinyl anytime soon from reading these posts. So we wind up with new multi players that don't play cd well and a scarcity of source material. Maybe the public is wisely waiting it out this time. |
Well said Brucegel. If your cd or sacd's sound better than your analog you've got a problem in that end. It does unfortunately cost a lot to get it right. I am making the reference from listening to the Audiomeca Mephisto cd player against the Nottingham Hyperspace with Anna arm and Benz ruby 2. The digital has come along way though and I listen to more cd's because of new music releases only |
Neither is replacing hi-end 2k analog rigs...but only a few are at that level anyways...the solution will be a universal player...we will have to see if there is enough software to make it stick...however...with new "blue" laser technology just around the corner...and who knows what else...afterall...what ever hits the "consumer" level is probably 5yrs. behind the times anyways...and like Cd...there is plenty of room for new hi-rez, vinyl, and whatever else.... |
I feel the average consumer is happy with redbook cd,and they could care less about SACD! |
I have no idea if sacd will live or die a slow death.
Most people dont even know what sacd is,at least the people I know.
Who in their right mind would buy a player when there are only 200 or so sacds to buy? Plus in my opinion 75% or more of these suck!!
I guess Im not one in "their right mind" as I just bought a sacd player and I own 2 sacds and 1 sucks! |
I don't care what the public buys. Hey, most buy $199 stereo systems, or MP3 compatiable computers. With this equipment, I would buy CSs as well.
There's now over 800 SACDs, not 200. www.aMusicDirect.com currently lists 594 SACDs for sale at their site alone. There's more SACDs than I'm willing to buy.
I now own 100 SACDs. I have a couple that sound similar to the CD version, but I've never found a poor sounding SACD. I find poorly recorded CDs and DVD-Vs often. Buying a SACD is insurance that the recording is well engineered.
By the way, the same can't be said for DVD-A. Many DVD-As do not equal the CD counterpart. I bought two DVD-A players, but returned them both.
Now you may not like certain type of music that is recorded on SACD (e.g. Jazz, classical, etc.), but that's not a reason to pu-pu SACD. I don't like Rap. That does not make CD technology inferior because most Rap is on CDs.
If one needs to worry about a dying format, they should worry about vinyl. I can find SACDs at Circuit City and Best Buy. Can't find any vinyl. The public doesn't seem to care about buying vinyl--especially the younger generation. |
[email protected], Circut city.com sells lp's ! No hard numbers but it looks to me like there have been more lp's released last year than SACD's |
Completely IMO, the most insightful points in this thread are:
SACD is not about sound quality with regards to it's ultimate purpose and/or acceptance. It's about corporate profits, consumer cost and convenience.
There are many many more people today with SACD capability in their home than there were a year ago, due to exactly the phenomena Treyhoss describes - "I need a new DVD player, the Sony's have a killer picture and, whoa, it looks like I got SACD capability to boot!". Only many people probably have absolutely no idea or interest in what SACD is or does, or whether it's a better quality sound or whatever.
I read Michael Fremer's proud statements of all the TT's sold in Europe last year (while admitting most of them are the $199 models, clearly bought by people who have an old collection and a broken TT), as he promotes the notion (that is quite possibly true, today) that "vinyl is enjoying a resurgence". How many people bought a Sony DVD player last year that was SACD capable? Given that all but their cheapest models are, I'm guessing the number dwarfs the number of TTs sold. Only difference is that no SACD-zealot is holding up these numbers saying "SACD is steamrolling!"
It is absolutely true that the public is not clamoring for, nor particularly wants, SACD. It's also true that SACD doesn't represent the same clear consumer benefit that CDs had (again, for Joe Public, not for high-end consumers). But I don't think Sony is surprised by this, or intended that to be the catch. What Sony wants is for everybody to seamlessly go from buying CDs to SACDs.
Sony has released dozens of models of devices that are SACD capable that are in the process of replacing incompatible units in consumers' hands that break down over time. SACD is not going to sell at $19.95 a disc, but all Sony has to do is to sell the SACD dual-layer (ie, backward compatible) version of the latest Eminem release for cheaper than the CD version, and they'll get people's attention. Yes, they'd lose money, but gigantic corporations do it all the time to gain market share, and have the pockets to see it through. How much did you pay for your copy of Internet Explorer?
Finally, Treyhoss' point that the future format is quite likely higher-resolution than anything we have today, and more accessible to boot (due to cheaper storage and bandwidth) is undeniable true, in my opinion. Everybody chastises MP3 for it's "low bandwidth and crappy sound" but that's just today's usage of it, due to how people can interact with it. There's nothing about MP3 itself, or a backward compatible MP4 of the future, that keeps it from supporting a higher-resolution format than SACD in the future.
I think the whole focus on formats is something that only a group like this thinks about. Most of the public doesn't care at all (unless it doesn't work). Cheap, convenient, and what I want quickly is all that matters. |
T.Martin says (young people are not interested in vinyl
I just came home from Amoeba records,and the vinyl section
was so packed with young people i could hardly look around
I asked the clerk where the sacd were located,he replied
"whats that"
. |
In 1981,at the introduction of the CD format I was,initially, quite relieved to be escape the inherent problems with vinyl ... most notably hiss, pop and high-maintainence. I was not alone in this regard, I can assure you.
Now, twenty-two years later I find myself returning to vinyl relieved to escape the aggression, harshness and general lack of naturalness of the CD format. It is not that I have not heard impressive sounding CDs .... it's just that such discs are so extremely few and far between. Perhaps the best CD that I have ever heard has been 'For the Duke'. A gold CD on the M&K ' Real Time' label. A truly fantastic listening experience.
We know that it is possible to achieve great results with the CD format. It is just that it is so rarely done.
We have wrestled with this format for years now, seeking mythical and magical tweaks which would make it all come together. I am sorry to say that it all been in vain and as many others have mentioned, it is simply time to face the facts ... CD audio has been a complete shell game regardless of it's powerful selling points...convienence and relative indestructability. We, sincerely, wanted to believe. It was a musical 'Emperor's New Clothes', if you will. Let's eat our humble pie and accept the fact that if one truly loves listening to music, one simply has to embrace or re-embrace analogue (vinyl) in spite of it's obvious shortcomings (maintainence). We want to hear the full breadth and depth of every note .... of every word. We want to connect with something resembling a real human being on the other end. It is why we bother to listen at all.
Now, having sung the praises of vinyl I would like to point out that I have a SACD player as well. This format is also vastly superior to CD. It offers the convienence of CD and some of the better qualities of vinyl (smoother and more human). I truly hope that it survives as a format for it is a very reasonable compromise between CD and vinyl. Actually, some SACDs sound quite fantastic. Verdi's 'Requiem' on Sony comes immediately to mind.
I have, gladly, accepted SACD for general listening. However, for those special listening moments late in the evening when all is quiet and the power supply most stable I prefer vinyl. Long live the music. |
Eno, example of our great diversity; I cringe at the thought of having to use vinyl again. I owned a SACD player for a short time and admit that I never gave SACD a great trial, but I am quite pleased with the CD player I own. |
