Why make SACD hybrid CDs ?
Dec 1, 2012 at 3:24 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 8

RBYRER

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 26, 2007
Posts
172
Likes
11
As the title says , why make SACD hybrid ? It seems to me that if you only had a redbook CD player , you would save some money and buy the redbook version of whatever CD you wanted . Likewise , if you had a SACD player , you would buy a single layer SACD of whatever CD you wanted because it seems to me that it would be cheaper to make a single layer SACD where as the savings would be reflected down to the consumer . I know this seems like a dumb question , but I really would like to know . 
 
Dec 1, 2012 at 7:23 PM Post #2 of 8

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
23,092
Likes
4,738
Location
Hollywood USA
Some companies like Pentatone only make hybrid SACDs. I guess they don't want to have to maintain two formats in their catalog. Probably most of their customers listen to the redbook layer because they don't have a SACD player. But it really doesn't matter because both layers sound the same.
 
I believe many of the Living Stereo hybrid SACDs were never released on CD except in a complete box set. So if you wanted one particular title, you just buy the hybrid SACD. The price is the same.
 
Dec 12, 2012 at 1:00 PM Post #3 of 8

stokitw

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Posts
332
Likes
10
Because they have to do it for survival.
Most of early single layer SACDs did not fare well in the market, due to the slow development of SACD player market.
 
Now even Sony stops making new SACD player, single layer SACDs make no sense if the publisher wants to increase the customer base.
Small scale publisher prefer SACDs for the copyright protection, but they are not taking the risk of lowering sales for betting solely on SACD.
 
 
Dec 13, 2012 at 10:39 AM Post #4 of 8

sonci

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Posts
898
Likes
14
Quote:
As the title says , why make SACD hybrid ? It seems to me that if you only had a redbook CD player , you would save some money and buy the redbook version of whatever CD you wanted . 

No, I would buy the SACD, so when the time arrives to upgrade to SACD Player, I dont have to buy another disc,
hoping at that time SACD format is not DEAD..
 
Dec 13, 2012 at 1:07 PM Post #5 of 8

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
23,092
Likes
4,738
Location
Hollywood USA
I have a stash of Edison Cylinder records waiting for when I get a cylinder phonograph.
 
Dec 13, 2012 at 7:26 PM Post #6 of 8

sonci

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Posts
898
Likes
14
Quote:
I have a stash of Edison Cylinder records waiting for when I get a cylinder phonograph.

Who knows it can happen, 
biggrin.gif

Lately I found at a thriftstore a Zenith Transoceanic,
 
Dec 14, 2012 at 1:28 AM Post #7 of 8

Speakerphile

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 30, 2012
Posts
795
Likes
41
I think it was an attempt to push mainstream adoption of SACD. If they could get SACD versions into the hands of more people, more OEM's would start to build more players. I am sure they eventually planned to start releasing all studio albums as Hybrid SACD's. It really wouldn't have added that much cost to production. Just think. We would all be enjoying a much higher standard of audio quality these days if this strategy had worked. Sadly, this never happened. We're just now starting see higher resolution recordings released, over a decade later. On top of that, a lot of them don't even compare to the SACD releases...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top