[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrokenEnglish oh no... not that arafat thing again...

And yes, Arafat is still dead..

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grawk I think that there just wasn't a compelling reason to have both DVDA and SACD, and DVDA has gotten more market share.

For market share I thoguht it is the other way around.

 

[Wmcmanus]

Quick, quick, everyone sell me all of your best SACD discs while they are still worth something!

 

[soundboy]

I think most people considered SACD to be dead because Sony (in the US) hasn't released any titles in months, Universal Music has deleted its "upcoming SACD releases" webpage, and not many pop/rock titles are released on SACD. Also, there were unrealized expectations that SACD will replace CD as the mainstream music medium.

However, what's not reported is that SACD is closing in on 3,000 titles. Since the beginning of this year, about 200 SACD titles have been released. Yes, most of these are classical, but new releases mean music companies are still confident about this format. Within the last month or so, Sony/BMG has announced 2 upcoming rock SACD releases (in Europe). There are still SACD released in other parts of the world. So, maybe the problem is with the music buyers of this country (the US)?

 

[Wmcmanus]

Soundboy, I think we would all like to see the SACD format survive, but the evidence just isn't there in terms of sales volume to support the format in a proper way. Of the nearly 3,000 discs released to date on SACD, I doubt that more than 1/3rd of them have done well in the marketplace. And by now, you would think there would be 10,000+ titles available if the ones that had been released had done well. So sad, because I sure can hear the improvement that SACD provides over redbook.

 

[Jon L]

How can SACD die when it was never really alive

Seriously, though, I truly hope 24 bit/192 kHz DVD-A becomes the replacement for redbook CD's. Well-recorded 24/192 DVD-A sounds mind-bogglingly "live."

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus Soundboy, I think we would all like to see the SACD format survive, but the evidence just isn't there in terms of sales volume to support the format in a proper way. Of the nearly 3,000 discs released to date on SACD, I doubt that more than 1/3rd of them have done well in the marketplace. And by now, you would think there would be 10,000+ titles available if the ones that had been released had done well. So sad, because I sure can hear the improvement that SACD provides over redbook.

I agree with you. All I am saying is that SACD isn't dead yet....on life support, maybe?

 

[jpelg]

Wow, that news has got to hurt SACD fans

.

At least there will be some really big "fire" sales on existing SACD titles to look forward to. Snap 'em up y'all!

 

[JaZZ]

Let's get back to earth! The rumour has turned out to be not more than just that. SACD still is and will be alive, although on a low level of vitality. Anyway, it's possible that the industry will give up on one of the hi-rez formats in the next future, and it's hard to imagine it would be DVD-Audio considering the success of DVD-video. Would this be a bad thing? I'm not sure. After all the potential consumers would have a sound basis for their player and disc choice. Two new formats at once was an insanity and doomed to failure.

Sure, the majority of the available SACDs sound better than the corresponding CD versions. From this perspective, the SACD has its merits. But DSD as a recording and playback format doesn't make sense. Because it's virtually impossible to produce an SACD without first recording it or converting it to PCM for the indispensible digital processing (and mixing). That's what I've learned from various sources, among others the director of a record company (MDG). There may be unprocessed «pure DSD» SACDs around (I'm not even sure if this indication is trustworthy), but they are a diminishing minority. So what you get with an SACD is usually a PCM recording (in hi-rez, if you're lucky) converted to DSD to be playable on SACD players. It would make much more sense to leave the data in (hi-rez) PCM and play them on a DVD-Audio capable player -- on behalf of sound quality.

Therefore -- and as owner of a universal player with brilliant redbook playback

-- I wouldn't be too much shocked by the death of SACD. (But don't bring us dual discs!)

 

[Jigglybootch]

Though I'm not a huge fan of either format, I'd prefer SACD to die off. The thought of DSD makes me want to kick something. As far as I'm concerned, DSD is a gimmick.

:::Totally off-topic:::
On a sidenote, I understand that the appeal of these new, "hi-rez" formats has to do with copy protection more than anything, but does anyone else feel that the industry should've just stuck with vinyl? Who needs digital rights management when the source isn't digital? Granted, it's not impossible to make digital rips of vinyl, but it's more of a pain than ripping a CD, and for someone like me, that's too much work.

:::End of off-topic rambling:::

 

[tkam]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jigglybootch :::Totally off-topic::: On a sidenote, I understand that the appeal of these new, "hi-rez" formats has to do with copy protection more than anything, but does anyone else feel that the industry should've just stuck with vinyl? Who needs digital rights management when the source isn't digital? Granted, it's not impossible to make digital rips of vinyl, but it's more of a pain than ripping a CD, and for someone like me, that's too much work. :::End of off-topic rambling:::

Thats simple for the average music listener vinyl is not very convenient it takes up more room and degrades over time if not kept properly. It really does come down to convenience hence my earlier post about downloadable music being the future its very convenient and super easy to keep stored in an easily organized manner.

Hopeful we do ge some hi-rez format in the future maybe after hd-dvd and blu-ray start coming out.

 

[kentamcolin]

Interestingly, I read that more new vinyl was sold last year than SACD & DVD-A combined!

 

[Jigglybootch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkam Thats simple for the average music listener vinyl is not very convenient it takes up more room and degrades over time if not kept properly. It really does come down to convenience hence my earlier post about downloadable music being the future its very convenient and super easy to keep stored in an easily organized manner. Hopeful we do ge some hi-rez format in the future maybe after hd-dvd and blu-ray start coming out.

You say that vinyl isn't very convenient, yet it was the standard for decades. I would say that vinyl was more than sufficient, especially considering that it still hasn't gone away and is apparently outselling SACD and DVD-A.

That's not to say that CDs aren't convenient. They are smaller, and they don't degrade over time, which is a huge plus. But they also sound like garbage (due to bad mastering). What I was trying to get at is that if the music industry stuck with a format that wasn't digital, then they would have to worry less about digital rights management and copy protection and could focus more on the sound quality, which has gone down the crapper in the last 15 years or so. Of course, even if vinyl still was the standard, who am I to say that the loudness race would have never happened? There's no telling how, or if, things would have been different.

Sorry about my rambling, but I just don't understand how the record industry could be so concerned about money and yet still get behind a format that is so easily pirated. I wasn't even born when CDs first came out, so I can't say for sure if there was any kind of an outcry for a better way to distribute music, but as far as I'm concerened, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[soundboy]

Vinyl was the standard for decades because there wasn't anything "better" to replace it. When the Sony Walkman was introduced, the cassette finally came into its own and replaced LPs are the prime medium for pre-recorded music.

The music business is, after all, a business. When the CD came out, the music industry see it as a chance to "resell" the consumers their music collection all over again. Consumers see CD as major improvement over vinyl record and cassette....less wear, portable, remote control, no rewind/forward, etc.... and eventually CD pushes aside both of those formats. It also helps that a popular album like Dire Straits' "Brother In Arms" was there to promote the CD format....a well-recorded digital pop/rock recording that took advantage of the CD format and was estimated, at one time, the most popular title on CD. On top of that, when CD was introduced, there was no way of duplicating a CD onto another CD at home. Recordable CD was still a dream in the early 90s....remember Radio Shack's THOR-CD? Or the notion that the recordable Mini-Disc was to replace the CD?

SACD, and DVD-A, lacked all of the above mentioned factors. People are now accustomed to downloading and the lowered standards of sound quality. Sound quality was never a top priority of the mass consumers.

 

[clarke68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jigglybootch Sorry about my rambling, but I just don't understand how the record industry could be so concerned about money and yet still get behind a format that is so easily pirated. I wasn't even born when CDs first came out, so I can't say for sure if there was any kind of an outcry for a better way to distribute music, but as far as I'm concerened, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

You pretty much answered your own question right there. Back when CDs first came out (1983) music piracy was called 'home taping' and it wasn't any easier with a CD than it was with an LP. Most U.S. homes did not have personal computers, and the ones that did were limited to about 640k of RAM. The internet was squarely in the domain of academic research and the government, and the term 'cyberspace' didn't even exist in science fiction.

Sure, there were some techno-dweebs sitting in a lab somewhere prognosticating digital downloads, and how you'd never read a newspaper again because it would 'come to you' on your computer, but nobody was really paying attention to those guys, certainly not record companies.

The only public outcry was whenever record companies raised the prices of albums...new releases were $7.99 as long as I can remember, then they went to $8.69 for a while. CDs were the record industry's way raising prices: they're cheaper to produce and sold for twice as much ($14.99, 20 years ago). Plus, they got to sell you the 'classics' all over again (who didn't own 'Dark Side of the Moon' on vinyl and CD?).

For most people, having no dust noise and not having to turn the record over half way through was enough to 'prove' CDs are better. Anyone remember "...and you can drive your car over them and they will still play!" Fact is, you need a pretty high-end vinyl setup to hear the advantages of analog, and most people have never experienced it.

From the industry's perspective, it worked great. And it worked great going from VHS to DVD. Of course they were bound to try it again, and they might as well fix their digital distribution concerns at the same time.

Trouble is, the general public has no use for SACD. Resolution? C'mon...even a lot of audiophiles can't tell the difference between SACD and a well-mastered CD, let alone the general public. Multi-channel? It isn't compelling for the same reason quad wasn't compelling...most Americans listen to music while they're doing something else, they don't sit down and listen to music the way they sit down and watch a movie.

I wouldn't say SACD is dead, but the vote is certainly out on its longevity as a medium.