I think that the limitations on SACD are entirely limitations based on marketing failures.
Absence of widely used digital connections
Sony, by insisting on draconian copy protection features, released SACDs without providing an appropriate way to get SACD signals out. SACD signals could not transmit over standard S/PDIF connections, and of course, SACDs predated the introduction of HDMI 1.3. The remaining choices were grim:
(a) using a firewire connection between the SACD player and a receiver (or preamp or DAC). This was called i.Link, and it had a number of nice technical features (in particular, it used a buffered network packet protocol, eliminating most jitter issues). Unfortunately i.Links didn't generally work across vendors; two major vendors investing in i.Link were Pioneer and Denon, but their systems were not compatible. Indeed, Denon quickly abandoned i.Link for its proprietary DenonLink.
(b) Output data over analog cables. This required high quality DACs in the SACD players (making them, at the time of introduction expensive). More serious, at this point in time, many high-end surround sound systems were being supported by AV receivers or preamps that converted analog signals to the digital domain for DSP processing, bass management, time delay management, equalization, and all the other processing that surround systems do. Of course, the situation with 2-channel playback was easier, but the labels were pushing surround-sound playback. Thus a signal transferred in this way would go the following transformations: DSD -> PCM -> D/A -> cable to receiver -> A/D -> DSP management ->D/A -> cable to speaker. I think many receivers failed to maintain the high quality of SACD in these transitions.
Now, of course, we have HDMI 1.3, but it has arrived far too late (and, since its use is dominated as a video format, it often poses problems in practice for consumers who want to configure their systems to listen to music).
The competition with DVD-A
The competition with DVD-A left consumers uneasy about which type of system to purchase. Early universal players were expensive and flakey and unwieldy. Today, of course, one can buy a Pioneer 48AV for $99 or an Oppo 980H for $170, but early universal players helped dampen interest in the format.
Poor distribution channels
SACDs were poorly marked and in some cases unmarked (or mismarked). Online retailers routinely mixed up orders for Red Book CDs and SACDs. Often the cover art and packaging of a SACD release and the corresponding CD release was minimal.
Technical mumbo-jumbo
The language of consumer audio is full of pseudo-scientific claims, but the problem appears to be particular acute in the realm of high-resolution audio. The competing claims made for PCM versus DSD are a perfect example (successful transcoding between the two should be inaudible to the listener). Furthermore, since many redbook DVDs claim to be 24-bit remasters or to use DSD during the remastering process, it is no wonder consumers were confused
Is there a difference?
It is clear to me that there is a difference between Red Book CDs and SACDs -- beyond the mastering. Anyone who has listened to a work of high dynamic range with his finger on the volume control knows what I mean -- CD resolution in quiet passages is often apallingly bad.
I miss the absence of new SACDs. I hope that they may some day come back, although I am not holding my breath.
.gif)
