SACD - what gives?

I get the feeling of being in the minority (or perhaps composing it myself). I have neither an analog rig nor good tweeters which perhaps makes me more satisfied with SACD than I should be but I am reasonably happy with SACD so far.

Perhaps my age and the fact that my financial ability to support a music habit (no real access to used software) is somewhat recent have something to do with it but most of the older re-issues I've bought have been first-time purchases of that particular music), especially in the jazz category (grew up listening to others' copies).

Some new issues are absolutely fabulous - musically and sonically. e.g. Prieres Sans Paroles (BIS), the Eric Bibb discs (Opus 3), Wispelwey playing Britten cello concertos (Channel Classics), and the list goes on.

Gregm, the redbook layer being better... I've noticed it too. perhaps due to the re-mastering? A lot of the re-issues I've seen have been 20-24-bit re-masters on the redbook layer.

Detlof, I too remember a thread or two about the limitations of SACD at high frequencies. At least one of the threads is here.

This and 2cts will get you 2cts. Travis

Needs more time. I remember when DVD was never going catch on. SACD is better than CD on my system. I look forward to some new tune being recorded in DSD.

Tim

most sacd's are being mastered without the consent or approval of the artist....if the labels deal with new artists they get into serious money/control issues....most of the labels older material is controlled in perpituity by the label,not the artist...its cheaper to redo and the artist doesn't have to like it.

I've had SACD for about a year now (Sony 555 played through older 2-channel Spectral electronics and Martin Logan Sequel II speakers). While I noticed an improvement from CDs immediately, I didn't play SACDs that frequently due to a relatively small collection. But over time my collection grew to about 70, and my machine completed its break-in phase, and during the past month or so I have found myself gravitating more and more to my SACDs. Compared with CDs the highs are much more natural, and the timbre of instruments is much richer (unless all of the necessary information has been lost in the recording studio which is sometimes the case) drawing me much more into the music.

I can't compare SACDs with LPs. I am one of those people who was driven crazy by surface noise on LPs and for whatever reason, I was incapable of finding and/or maintaining quiet vinyl, even from some of the well known audiophile labels of the 80s.

What I can say is that this weekend, when I put on a number of SACDs, both originals and remasters, I had one of the most enjoyable listening experiences I've had for quite a while.

The answer to your question is very simple. For the most part, they don't exist. To have them means that the recording studios have to convert to machines capable of making these recordings. If you ask the same question about DVD-A recordings you get the same answer. Why invest in a machine that may be obsolete if the format dies. So even though many studios can make a high resolution digital recording, they are not in native SACD format and have to be digitally converted.

Why reissues? Most of the recordings in the studio vaults are on analog tape. There are millions (well, at least a whole lot) of hours of tape that can be remastered and reissued in a higher resolution format. These are recordings of proven sellers versus the crap shoot of recordings of new music. Which would you do?