Ok so this may sound kind of odd but I was wondering what happened to SACD's? About 2 years ago I went crazy or something and joined the Marine reserve. When I left I was picking up SACD's to play with my pioneer elite 59dvi. I got Dark side of the moon, sea change, and tommy, with all intentions of buying more. So after boot camp, SOI, and a deployment later, here I am looking for SACD's and they are no where to be found, and they have kinda jumped up in price. What happened???

Well for DVD-Audio it is All but Dead SACD is releasing mostly Classical stuff still but heard that sony wants to kill SACD off for good??

you can Find most of the titles online. Some of the OOP Good Luck and if you happen to find any OOP you will Pay a Premium :(

DVD-A is still being manufactured by some independents, like AIX Records.

http://aixrecords.com/

Excellent products.

Well for DVD-Audio it is All but Dead SACD is releasing mostly Classical stuff still but heard that sony wants to kill SACD off for good??

you can Find most of the titles online. Some of the OOP Good Luck and if you happen to find any OOP you will Pay a Premium :(

Don't write Sony off they just released to new SACD players.

Ok so this may sound kind of odd but I was wondering what happened to SACD's? About 2 years ago I went crazy or something and joined the Marine reserve. When I left I was picking up SACD's to play with my pioneer elite 59dvi. I got Dark side of the moon, sea change, and tommy, with all intentions of buying more. So after boot camp, SOI, and a deployment later, here I am looking for SACD's and they are no where to be found, and they have kinda jumped up in price. What happened???

According to some King Crimson although not official one of their albums will
be re- released in march see KC thread below.

So what took SACD off the market? It seemed poised to go big but when I got back it was gone.

So what took SACD off the market? It seemed poised to go big but when I got back it was gone.

Indiscriminate consumers, the Ipod and a general Wal-Mart mentality killed SACD.

btw...Thanks for your service, it's appreciated.

So what took SACD off the market? It seemed poised to go big but when I got back it was gone.

It's still around. Over 600 new titles released last year. Unfortunately, it's now a niche format for audiophiles.

It's still around. Over 600 new titles released last year. Unfortunately, it's now a niche format for audiophiles.

The "niche" part being very odd as most mid-range AVRs and some VERY reasonable DVD players (Pio DV48 $99) provide support for DSD (SACD) and LPCM (DVD-Audio) over HDMI - not exactly prime audiophile territory. Simply set up the player (transport, actually) for multichannel, plop in Dark Side of the Moon, crank the volume on the AVR, and you are in audio heaven!

It is ironic that hirez audio became a casualty in the war over digital video. Worst of all, hirez audio was so damaged by the time HDMI was deployed that it could not claim any real estate in the interface. Just a snippet or two could have been used to implement a bit-rate control mechanism putting "jitter" to rest for all time as a possible audiophile concern wrt to hirez. Oh well.

williak

'Indiscriminate consumers, the Ipod and a general Wal-Mart mentality killed SACD."

More like utter crap titles released is the true killer. There is 10 disk tops from either format I give two craps about, and the regular consumer there's probably half that on either as well.

More like utter crap titles released is the true killer. Well, here's a cursory rejection of a nice body of good classical recordings!!!

There is 10 disk tops from either format I give two craps about, and the regular consumer there's probably half that on either as well. That's another story, of course.;)

The "niche" part being very odd as most mid-range AVRs and some VERY reasonable DVD players (Pio DV48 $99) provide support for DSD (SACD) and LPCM (DVD-Audio) over HDMI - not exactly prime audiophile territory. Simply set up the player (transport, actually) for multichannel, plop in Dark Side of the Moon, crank the volume on the AVR, and you are in audio heaven!

It is ironic that hirez audio became a casualty in the war over digital video. Worst of all, hirez audio was so damaged by the time HDMI was deployed that it could not claim any real estate in the interface. Just a snippet or two could have been used to implement a bit-rate control mechanism putting "jitter" to rest for all time as a possible audiophile concern wrt to hirez. Oh well.

williakI had hoped, from the beginning, that SACD would hang on until mch HT systems had penetrated enough of the mass market to make it easily acceptable by many purchasers. Unfortunately, now that there's a decent and growing base of systems that can handle it, SACD is fading away. Sigh.

'Indiscriminate consumers, the Ipod and a general Wal-Mart mentality killed SACD."

More like utter crap titles released is the true killer. There is 10 disk tops from either format I give two craps about, and the regular consumer there's probably half that on either as well.

tell us how you really feel:D

i am missing the format and initially thought it would surviive but blu ray and the ipod as well as failure to put out a lot of mainstream stuff have made online purchase a necessity. I used to like to get packages from cc before they got murdered by bestbuy and the economy.

More like utter crap titles released is the true killer. There is 10 disk tops from either format I give two craps about, and the regular consumer there's probably half that on either as well.

These are all relatively current non-classical albums that were multi-million sellers that are on SACD....and there are more

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1238/586077290_7902cd7f95_m.jpghttp://farm2.static.flickr.com/1379/586072478_234f9863ae_m.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3047/3049768330_04d2117667_m.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2302/2252203771_6ed5989d7c_m.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3011/3049768230_63a1e62e43_m.jpghttp://farm2.static.flickr.com/1024/586076182_5dc8a1932f_m.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1191/586070380_a7411794cd_m.jpghttp://farm2.static.flickr.com/1286/586140582_705075346c_m.jpghttp://farm2.static.flickr.com/1293/586077506_1f7bf26213_m.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1017/586148496_f63f62fa01_m.jpghttp://farm2.static.flickr.com/1349/586116732_241dce70b3_m.jpghttp://farm2.static.flickr.com/1333/586141210_c952068b4a_m.jpg

LOOK. Sony delieberately abandoned the SACD. they just toileted the whole thing.

Thanks for the cover shots. Also try here: http://www.musicdirect.com/category/2 I'll be picking up the John Legend piece, sadly one of the few current brightspots in a cookie-cutter dead genre. I always seek out the SACD versions if availble.

These are all relatively current non-classical albums that were multi-million sellers that are on SACD....and there are more

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1238/586077290_7902cd7f95_m.jpghttp://farm2.static.flickr.com/1379/586072478_234f9863ae_m.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3047/3049768330_04d2117667_m.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2302/2252203771_6ed5989d7c_m.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3011/3049768230_63a1e62e43_m.jpghttp://farm2.static.flickr.com/1024/586076182_5dc8a1932f_m.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1191/586070380_a7411794cd_m.jpghttp://farm2.static.flickr.com/1286/586140582_705075346c_m.jpghttp://farm2.static.flickr.com/1293/586077506_1f7bf26213_m.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1017/586148496_f63f62fa01_m.jpghttp://farm2.static.flickr.com/1349/586116732_241dce70b3_m.jpghttp://farm2.static.flickr.com/1333/586141210_c952068b4a_m.jpg

More like utter crap titles released is the true killer. There is 10 disk tops from either format I give two craps about, and the regular consumer there's probably half that on either as well.


Which came first?...The chicken or the egg???....:)

Well of those 12 you listed I'd give two craps about hearing two of them maybe. And that's hearing them, I would buy one, and I did, it sucked quality wise(John Mayer). As far as others, ha what another 5 in how many years now. 5 or 6 years SACD has been out so 20 half ass attempts at current titles in half a decade....and you have to wonder or guess why it failed.

I actually like classical a little, jazz some, but come on is there really any wonder why it's a 100% niche market now. I mean christ it's crap my dad would listen to 98% of the time. No thanks.

I will say Genesis ones are great totally amazing as was Billy Joel The Stranger, Bjorks dvd-audio's are mind blowing. But come on that's the best they could do in half a decade of a format. Everything else is crap to fall asleep to....

I will say Genesis ones are great totally amazing as was Billy Joel The Stranger, Bjorks dvd-audio's are mind blowing. But come on that's the best they could do in half a decade of a format. Everything else is crap to fall asleep to....

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3501/3236019450_6170dfd959_m.jpghttp://farm2.static.flickr.com/1165/586138860_63b8e91525_m.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3194/3049751460_b8e41c6996_m.jpg

You don't like the Who? Or Steely Dan?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3316/3236170782_c9d97b3748_m.jpghttp://farm2.static.flickr.com/1100/586085312_f748f5f9b3_m.jpg

These are all relatively current non-classical albums

Current? That Allison Krauss album is almost 15 years old. Celine and Sting albums are 10 years old. John Mayer album's 8 years old. Shania album's 7 years old. Beyonce, Michael McDonald, George Strait, Toby Keith - all 6 years old.

And if you like those artists, those probably aren't what you'd consider to be the best examples of their work either, which is something I've noticed about SACD releases in general. I like Steely Dan, but Gaucho would be somewhere down the list of their albums I really, really want in a new format.

The record companies blew it big time! Instead of investing in getting old guys like me to re-buy quality music from the past via SACD and DVD-A, they wasted their resources fighting with kids over copyright issues on overly compressed copies of crappy "music".

When I first got into SACD/DVD-A, I had high hopes, but I've come to accept it is a niche format. I still have a rather large list of "wish list" titles at SA-CD.net but I'm cognizant of the fact my tastes happen to coincide with a significant cross section of what's available on SACD. One conclusion I've reached, after nearly six years of trying to "prove" otherwise (to myself--I'm not making any claims for anyone else) that well mastered 2 channel recordings were noticeably superior in SACD (DVD-A has so few 2 channel only releases it's not worth mentioning them in detail) vs redbook (same mix/mastering) is that the difference (if there) is not worth a price premium. I don't have "audiophile" gear--I have what I consider respectable gear, but nothing esoteric or uber-expensive--and while my hearing is in excellent shape, for my age, I am in my forties now and my hearing will not improve over time. Given these factors, I no longer seek out non-MCH SACDs unless A) they are the only available re-release of a title I want (rarely the case), B) I feel reasonably sure (owing to the comments and reviews of people whose opinion I respect) that, for one reason or another, the SACD will sound better (RCA Living Stereo SACDs would be the best example of something like that as these appear to be the best version of these releases available)--and even here there can't be too much of a premium over the redbook version or C) the SACD release is priced equally or less than the redbook equivalent (I have a few in my collection where that was the case). I have a number of 2 channel only SACDs, but they were almost all purchased in my early days of being on the SACD/DVD-A bandwagon. I don't foresee buying anymore of those unless they meet one of my three criteria above.

However, I will always seek out the SACD/DVD-A of any title I want if there is a MCH mix available. I am firmly in the camp of discrete MCH mixes and those mixes are what keep me buying SACD/DVD-A (and, in future, if it becomes the norm, Blu-ray audio discs).

This is too bad I bought dark side of the moon and was amazed. I really wanted to get some other discs with great effects like this one.

This is too bad I bought dark side of the moon and was amazed. I really wanted to get some other discs with great effects like this one.Well, they still exist. All the expressed pessimism is for the future. Go to www.sa-cd.net and browse.

I had hoped, from the beginning, that SACD would hang on until mch HT systems had penetrated enough of the mass market to make it easily acceptable by many purchasers. Unfortunately, now that there's a decent and growing base of systems that can handle it, SACD is fading away. Sigh.

Kal,

Looks like you and I had similar (unrealistic) expectations. I am still peeved at Denon since I believe their DenonLink in its various iterations was a check to competition in audio equipment that hirez audio was simply unable to overcome. Everyone knew a copy-protected digital interface was needed to open up digital hirez in the immediate aftermath of Napster and others.

Had Denon adopted Sony's iLink early on as Pioneer did much too late, I believe Pio would have come out earlier to compete and critical mass for iLink would have brought most major manufacturers into digital hirez. With the CP'd link nailed down, the demand for software would have increased (probably modestly - but that would have been OK) as well as exposure to mch audio in forums like these and in the audio review press. From that point, who knows what could have been? As you say, the coming ubiquity of 5.1 and HDMI spells a future for mch audio, but the early forms like SACD/DVD-A look to be relics.

Do you have any clues what Denon was up to? Why did it fight so hard against iLink? There was NEVER any chance any other manufacturer would have licensed DenonLink and my understanding was Sony was very reasonable from the get-go on providing iLink support. I have never understood Denon's position and have never gotten a response that meets the smell test from anyone in the corporation. Curious...

williak

For the time being at least, Telarc (http://www.telarc.com)is still releasing SACD (and not all classical).

Don't write Sony off they just released to new SACD players.

I would...half the time Sony doesn't know what the right hand is doing verses the left hand!

LOOK. Sony delieberately abandoned the SACD. they just toileted the whole thing.

Yes! Someone that can see through the smoke! ;)

In general it was too little too late.

If there was DSD support from the start, HDMI for multichannel instead of 6 channel RCAs, and if more rock, pop and country were released it may have caught on quicker. If new releases were released in the format it may have sold quicker. If they had demos setup like they did when CD was released to show how much better it is I think it would have caught on.

Another reason is the horrible marketing. The only reason I knew about either was from forums. I never saw any ads except for 1 or 2 in Rolling Stone for SACD when the format was nearly dead. Marketing/advertising does drive sales. Without marketing people don't hear about a product and therefore don't go out looking for them.

Finally, MP3 and iPod. Consumers now seem to care more about convenience than quality. I'll admit it I have an iPod that I use for when I am not at home and in my car, but I also have a collection of SACD, DVD-A and XRCD.

"You don't like the Who? Or Steely Dan?"

Nope, that's my dad's music...and I'm 39. No interest in that stuff. Fleetwood Mac Rumours dvd-audio as old as I'm willing to go, Eagles hotel California, Queen old as I'm willing to go. I mean I LOVE the sound quality on the ones I do have for most part, really think all the ones I've got on either format is great, cept maybe the John Mayer one I just got. It's ok but mix seems screwed up.

Hardware issues didn't help either format, but the real killer for anything is software. If you're 45 or older or into classical or jazz. Sure maybe you have MANY more choices to pick from on both formats.

But for the most part 90% of it is crap, that no one wants to listen to, let alone go through all the trouble of hardware issues and what not.

But I wouldn't trade the handfull I do have for anything. But you can see pretty easily what the formats are dead.

EricM407 and jayna_95's post also pound the nail even further into the coffin. They're dead on.

"You don't like the Who? Or Steely Dan?"

Nope, that's my dad's music...and I'm 39. No interest in that stuff. Fleetwood Mac Rumours dvd-audio as old as I'm willing to go, Eagles hotel California, Queen old as I'm willing to go. I mean I LOVE the sound quality on the ones I do have for most part, really think all the ones I've got on either format is great, cept maybe the John Mayer one I just got. It's ok but mix seems screwed up.

Hardware issues didn't help either format, but the real killer for anything is software. If you're 45 or older or into classical or jazz. Sure maybe you have MANY more choices to pick from on both formats.No problem with any of that. Tastes are certainly not uniform (nor should they be).

But for the most part 90% of it is crap, that no one wants to listen toThis, however, is where your credibility takes a hit. YOU are certainly entitled to dislike "90%" of it, but to dismiss it as "crap that no one wants to listen to", on your say so, is, well, absurd. Even if the formats did not catch on, the titles available in those formats include a significant number of multi-million selling titles (all formats taken together). Hardly music that "no one wants to listen to".

Well no matter how you put it most people could care less about what's been released on sacd. Sure they gave a half ass attempt at doing dual disk version or whatever they're called for sacd. But really no one cares about releases from 1960's 70's, sure some people do I even like a few. But seriously 90% of the buying public don't care. They or so the labels claim they can't even get public to buy cd's now. The sky is falling. Heck copy protection could've been solved right off the bat sacd or nothing. What they made people switch to hdtv. I know it's all far fetched I'm just saying there were options. They did everything wrong, I mean everything.

And just like video formats the one with the movies, wins. In this case the one with the albums people wanted won...oh wait yeah they both failed and it's no wonder. I'm not looking for credibility, it's a fact. I tell people what sacd or dvd-audio is, let them hear it. On my system I think it sounds amazing, they 100% have always agreed. FIrst thing they ask is well what else is on it.....and I always end up saying um well ....err..list 10 titles and they're like that's it....topic never comes up again. They 100% failed , I mean failed at releasing a nice selection of wide variety of stuff people wanna actually listen to..

I have diana krall, I wanna puke every time I listen to it. It's supposed to me great, amazing, I even actually like Jazz. But I can't take it. The only disk I'd sell my soul for is both Bjork disk and one isn't even really high res but the mix is hands down the greatest one ever put on disk. Genesis-Genesis, Billy Joel - The Stranger, Queen-whichever one it was I forget, Eagles - Hotel California those are all perfect example of what the format can be.

............
But for the most part 90% of it is crap, that no one wants to listen to, let alone go through all the trouble of hardware issues and what not.......

I have to agree, especially with respect to DVD-Audio. When these discs were in the stores, the racks were overflowing with SILVERLINE titles, with a few WB/Rhino titles thrown in for good measure. Around my area, the WB/Rhino titles would sell quickly, leaving the horrible SILVERLINE discs sitting in the racks. The poor folks looking to buy a DVD-Audio disc for home or their new car would end up buying one of these fake "stunning" surround discs and on the basis of a single listen would dismiss the format as a joke.

It's also true that the labels who did release legit stuff did not pay enough attention to newer releases. I'm in "your Dad's" music age range, but I also like some new stuff. I would have loved to be able to buy, for example, a 5.1 DVD-A of "American Idiot", "The Marshall Mathers LP", Dido's first album, and many more. There were many current titles that would have been great in 5.1, either as an SACD or DVD-A, but for some reason they never got to see the light of day.

It all points to horrible marketing.

The vast majority of the public think mp3s of overcompressed junk is "Hifi". As long as they can get it on their ipod and play it as a constant background to fill the silence then they're happy.

The reason sacd/dvda failed was because the manufacturers fragmented a diminishing market at the time portability was becoming more important. The fragmentation reduced profits which resulted in less interest in releasing more content. Limited content further reduced the public's interest.

Anyone who dismisses some music because "it's old" is not a true music lover.
Formats and medium can get "old" but good music never does.

...people could care less about what's been released on sacd...

How much less? A lot or just a little or somewhere in between?:D

There could be a ton of money to be made if multi-channel mixes of these albums were created, whether in DVD-A, SACD, or BluRay, if the powers-that-be decided to market them properly: Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Wish You Were Here, Electric Ladyland, The White Album, Animals, The Wall, Are You Experienced?, Surrealistic Pillow, Volunteers, Aja, Bridge of Sighs, Close to the Edge, Quadrophenia, Graceland, 2112, Led Zeppelin 1-4, In the Court of the Crimson King, Traffic, John Barleycorn Must Die, Low Spark of High Heeled Boys, Aqualung, Meddle, Magical Mystery Tour, Pretzel Logic, Rubber Soul, Sticky Fingers, Who's Next .....

So what took SACD off the market? It seemed poised to go big but when I got back it was gone.

Three reasons primarily, low penetration of good quality 5.1surround sound systems, consumer apathy (most could not tell the difference between SACD/CD - remember, SACD intitially came out as 2ch only), and poor label/content support (other than calssical).

There could be a ton of money to be made if multi-channel mixes of these albums were created, whether in DVD-A, SACD, or BluRay, if the powers-that-be decided to market them properly: Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Wish You Were Here, Electric Ladyland, The White Album, Animals, The Wall, Are You Experienced?, Surrealistic Pillow, Volunteers, Aja, Bridge of Sighs, Close to the Edge, Quadrophenia, Graceland, 2112, Led Zeppelin 1-4, In the Court of the Crimson King, Traffic, John Barleycorn Must Die, Low Spark of High Heeled Boys, Aqualung, Meddle, Magical Mystery Tour, Pretzel Logic, Rubber Soul, Sticky Fingers, Who's Next .....

Better be careful, most of that stuff is from the 60's and 70's and labeled as junk by some in here.....:)....I'm with you though, I'll take that era over the overcompressed garbage we are currently fed. If I could get "Bridge of Sighs" and "WYWH" in a good 5.1 mix, life would be much better!

Most of the popular music that some seem to think would make a great SACD is so overly compressed and mixed for car stereos and IPods that it wouldn't make any difference on SACD vs Redbook CD. A good example is the Norah Jones release....Evry time I see someone praise how awesome that sounds on SACD, I just wonder if that person has ever heard a real live piano in open space and what it sounds like. 90% of modern pop, besides being garbage music is totally unsuitable for the format in question, the dynamics of the mix just dont require the SACD headroom to reproduce them.

There could be a ton of money to be made if multi-channel mixes of these albums were created, whether in DVD-A, SACD, or BluRay, if the powers-that-be decided to market them properly: Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Wish You Were Here, Electric Ladyland, The White Album, Animals, The Wall, Are You Experienced?, Surrealistic Pillow, Volunteers, Aja, Bridge of Sighs, Close to the Edge, Quadrophenia, Graceland, 2112, Led Zeppelin 1-4, In the Court of the Crimson King, Traffic, John Barleycorn Must Die, Low Spark of High Heeled Boys, Aqualung, Meddle, Magical Mystery Tour, Pretzel Logic, Rubber Soul, Sticky Fingers, Who's Next .....

Yet, the studios haven't done it because I think you overestimate the market. Genesis have recently completed a 5.1 re-release of their back catalog, and while I think sales have been respectable (must be as they are planning a similar treatment for their live albums), they're hardly stunning!

I'd be the first to line up for a similar catalog re-issue from bands like The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Alan Parsons Project and Yes - but I think I'm in the minority. Perhaps we'l see suvh a thing available as a download someday.

Better be careful, most of that stuff is from the 60's and 70's and labeled as junk by some in here.....:)....I'm with you though, I'll take that era over the overcompressed garbage we are currently fed. If I could get "Bridge of Sighs" and "WYWH" in a good 5.1 mix, life would be much better!

Most of the popular music that some seem to think would make a great SACD is so overly compressed and mixed for car stereos and IPods that it wouldn't make any difference on SACD vs Redbook CD. A good example is the Norah Jones release....Evry time I see someone praise how awesome that sounds on SACD, I just wonder if that person has ever heard a real live piano in open space and what it sounds like. 90% of modern pop, besides being garbage music is totally unsuitable for the format in question, the dynamics of the mix just dont require the SACD headroom to reproduce them.

Does real live piano in open space sound the way it does on Pink Floyd albums? Maybe it was those Beatles albums that really captured it? Or the Stones? And Hendrix and Zeppelin really need the headroom of SACD to be reproduced with full dynamics, right?

Norah Jones really isn't a good example of what's wrong with audio mixes these days. Not at all.

Does real live piano in open space sound the way it does on Pink Floyd albums? Maybe it was those Beatles albums that really captured it? Or the Stones? And Hendrix and Zeppelin really need the headroom of SACD to be reproduced with full dynamics, right?

Norah Jones really isn't a good example of what's wrong with audio mixes these days. Not at all.

Agreed, most popular music sees no benefit from SACD treatment other than the added benefit of a 5.1 mix IMO.

The Norah Jones is actually a pretty good mix, for a modern heavy handed board operator. But even it doesn't benefit from SACD very much, if at all. On my set up there is very little difference between the CD and the SACD, as is typical for modern popular mixes. The point I was trying to make is that even as good/liveable as the Norah Jones mix is, that SACD still has very little benefit over the redbook CD. For pop/rock type stuff the appeal to me for SACD has always been the 5.1 mix. Properly done it can transform a familiar album into a new listening experience.

If you're talking about there being little difference between the CD and the stereo portion of the Nora Jones 'Come Away With Me' SACD then unfortunately that's to be expected for that particular release...

-----------
<snip>
... for the SACD's two-channel layer, someone ran the 16-bit/44.1kHz "Red Book" CD data through a DSD format converter, instead of going back to the two-channel analog tape and making a fresh DSD transfer.
<snip>
http://www.stereophile.com/thefifthelement/1104fifth/
-----------

Does real live piano in open space sound the way it does on Pink Floyd albums?

I saw them back in 74 and yes, it sounded exactly like their album. Hmm, there were some drugs involved which may make my recollection suspect. ;)

Agreed, most popular music sees no benefit from SACD treatment other than the added benefit of a 5.1 mix IMO.

The Norah Jones is actually a pretty good mix, for a modern heavy handed board operator.

It's about as clean as you'll find these days, and substantially better than many of the older releases (Hendrix?) you were praising above.


But even it doesn't benefit from SACD very much, if at all. On my set up there is very little difference between the CD and the SACD, as is typical for modern popular mixes. The point I was trying to make is that even as good/liveable as the Norah Jones mix is, that SACD still has very little benefit over the redbook CD.

This point is undermined by the source of the SACD mix, as pointed out in the post below yours. If your point was correct, then it would be generally true that SACD has very little benefit over Redbook, period.

If your point was correct, then it would be generally true that SACD has very little benefit over Redbook, period.

After nearly seven years now of attempting to prove otherwise (to myself--I will not speak for others here, I don't have the energy for a cantankerous debate), I have come to the conclusion that, for 2 channel, this is mostly correct. I don't bother seeking out 2 channel only SACDs (though I still occasionally buy them if the price is the same as redbook or in the used stores where they can be less expensive than a new redbook--a rare thing, though). I'm into SACD because of discrete MCH and I will keep buying those as long as they are available.

It's about as clean as you'll find these days, and substantially better than many of the older releases (Hendrix?) you were praising above.



This point is undermined by the source of the SACD mix, as pointed out in the post below yours. If your point was correct, then it would be generally true that SACD has very little benefit over Redbook, period.


For pop/rock and the typical mix you find, it doesn't. Especially when you factor in the average user and the average room and the average rig that will be playing them.....Another reason SACD failed....it's not a supply side problem, it's the end consumers that saw no benefit and therefore didn't purchase. For most popular mixes played back in the typical room on the average rig, I agree with the general consensus.....no appreciable difference!

If you're talking about there being little difference between the CD and the stereo portion of the Nora Jones 'Come Away With Me' SACD then unfortunately that's to be expected for that particular release...

-----------
<snip>
... for the SACD's two-channel layer, someone ran the 16-bit/44.1kHz "Red Book" CD data through a DSD format converter, instead of going back to the two-channel analog tape and making a fresh DSD transfer.
<snip>
http://www.stereophile.com/thefifthelement/1104fifth/
-----------


Interesting, I hadn't heard that....Thanks for pointing it out, it explains what my ears hear.

Lots of reason DVD-Audio/SACD has failed or struggling:

1. Format war.

Got things off to a bad start. Which player to buy? They were not cheap. And who wanted to own the next Betamax? Eventually dual players came out, but was it too late by then?

2. People having to buy new players, cables, and maybe extra speakers.

Home theater was just starting to get more popular and most people (even now) don't have a music/movie set up other then their tv and a dvd player.

3. Trying to find the actual CD's at stores.

Not many music stores out there, so most had to do with likes of BB and CC. In my area the selection was minimal.

4. Not enough variety to generate enough sales.

I would of re-bought many of my "classic rock/pop" CD's and newer titles if they were out there.

5. Price of equipment and CD's.

Prices come down after sales and/or interest go up. Maybe most people on the fence thought the price of a new player/speaker/disks were too much. Most disc ran $25-$30 (in stores) and was hard to find much lower.

6. Awareness of how great MC music really can sound.

Unless you knew someone who had a set up how would you know how great it sounded. Go into Best Buy and you could hear a "surrond movie" playing and hear how much better that was then your tv speakers.

7. Maybe there just isn't enough people who want to sit and really listen to the fine details of even their favorite LP's/CD's.

Maybe even without a format war,
Inexpensive equipment that was easy to set up,
Enough material,
And easy to buy,
MC music was just never going to go mainstream.

Too bad because I love all my DVD-Audio/SACD's that I own and wish there was more out there that I want to buy.

just my 2 cents....

IMO, multichannel will never be anywhere near mainstream. I wish SACD would have been simple stereo DXD (352.8khz/24bit PCM) from the get go because it would have paved the way for DXD MC on Blu-ray. Instead we got DSD which really should have been DSD 128, but because there isn't enough space for stereo and MC we got DSD 64. MC has killed perfect sound forever, forever. They should have left MC to DVD Audio.

IMO, multichannel will never be anywhere near mainstream. I wish SACD would have been simple stereo DXD (352.8khz/24bit PCM) from the get go because it would have paved the way for DXD MC on Blu-ray. Instead we got DSD which really should have been DSD 128, but because there isn't enough space for stereo and MC we got DSD 64. MC has killed perfect sound forever, forever. They should have left MC to DVD Audio.

DXD still suffers from the same compatibility problems that DSD does except it's just easer to edit and use DSP on. Since all consumer equipment is LPCM based it just make logistical sense to use LPCM. Of course it really doesn't matter since at best Sony/Phillips are totally indifferent and at worst trying to bury SA-CD/DSD/DXD. Hopefully we will see a hybrid BD/CD Profile 3.0 before the end of this year with plenty of room for both 2ch and MC.

IMO, multichannel will never be anywhere near mainstream. I wish SACD would have been simple stereo DXD (352.8khz/24bit PCM) from the get go because it would have paved the way for DXD MC on Blu-ray. Instead we got DSD which really should have been DSD 128, but because there isn't enough space for stereo and MC we got DSD 64. MC has killed perfect sound forever, forever. They should have left MC to DVD Audio.

Well..............................

Sony's original plan for SACD was stereo, period. The first SACD players they sold, even the $5000 player, were stereo only.

Had they maintained that course, and released their surround titles on DVD-Audio, I would have to say that DVD-Audio would have faired much better.

Surround titles would have all been DVD-Audio, which would have meant that everyone with DVD surround systems could have listened in surround (via the regular DD and/or DTS track) and the HiRez tracks. The confusion factor in the marketplace would have been far less. Labels like UMG would have only had to release titles in one format, and no one would have had to pay Sony royalties for 5.1 releases.

Yes, IMHO, with respect to surround music, the marketplace would have been MUCH better off with DVD-A as the sole format for surround music.

I'm surprised nobody has really mentioned the fact that CD sales have been plummeting over the last few years with the rise of the MP3. given that CD sales are going down. you can't really expect SACD to fare any better. Also tell someone to spend more on an SACD to get the MCH and many will just tell you that they can just press a button on their receiver and the NEO6 or PLXX or other surround modes will give them that surround sound.

It's unfortunate that's its Dying…well being taken off the life support its been since it was born, but the entire physical realm of music is dying so buy em while they're around! Sure your grandkids will laugh at your shiny silver disks but when they leave at least we'll be able to hear music the way it was meant to be heard as they listen to their digitally over compressed low bitrate drivel.

The future of hi-rez music is probably not SACD or even Blu-ray - it's downloads.

I'm surprised nobody has really mentioned the fact that CD sales have been plummeting over the last few years with the rise of the MP3. given that CD sales are going down. you can't really expect SACD to fare any better. Also tell someone to spend more on an SACD to get the MCH and many will just tell you that they can just press a button on their receiver and the NEO6 or PLXX or other surround modes will give them that surround sound.

It's unfortunate that's its Dying…well being taken off the life support its been since it was born, but the entire physical realm of music is dying so buy em while they're around! Sure your grandkids will laugh at your shiny silver disks but when they leave at least we'll be able to hear music the way it was meant to be heard as they listen to their digitally over compressed low bitrate drivel.

I think SACD/DVD-Audio sales would never been large but could of held there own and not followed the same slide as CD. Cd is for the masses and todays masses want compact/portable music. so no suprise Cd sales are falling.
But MC music could of survived as a high-end market (that didn't cost too much). Think of some of these very high end receivers/amps/processors/speakers that are out there. The masses don't buy these but they have a market and are still being made. Even vinly has a market (and has made a small comback).
It just saddens me to know not much (of what I want) is going to come out in either format.

I have tried the NEO/PLXX on my regular CD's and it wasn't the same as MC.
And yes most people don't want to be bother with a set up for MC. But I think if it was promoted correctly it could of found a bigger market.

Wow, don't we have threads like this every 3 months or so? Seems like no change since the last thread. :D

My take on this is, that the record executives and companies that they operate, never really embraced sacd and dvd-a. In some cases, the execs that run some of these major labels, are more like lawyers, and have no love of music or sound. So, when you have that, quality is going to suffer.

Lets face it, how many of us right here, would have re-purchased once again, our collections to get them in high rez and surround? Most of us. And now we have Blu-Ray. I`m not expecting any great things with that either, for the same reasons.

Its unfortunate, but real. So, if we want high rez, we`ll have to settle for those few who still do it. Telarc, MusicGiants, AIX, etc. etc.

The future of hi-rez music is probably not SACD or even Blu-ray - it's downloads.

You may be right, but, boy, I sure hope you are wrong.

I absolutely despise managing music on my computer. Making sure that everything is named in a consistent and useful manner is a huge pain in the neck. Plus, I'd much rather have a physical disc with some nice artwork and good liner notes anyway (especially for opera).

You may be right, but, boy, I sure hope you are wrong.

I absolutely despise managing music on my computer. Making sure that everything is named in a consistent and useful manner is a huge pain in the neck. Plus, I'd much rather have a physical disc with some nice artwork and good liner notes anyway (especially for opera).

I miss albums and the cover art! My age is showing again.

You may be right, but, boy, I sure hope you are wrong.

I absolutely despise managing music on my computer. Making sure that everything is named in a consistent and useful manner is a huge pain in the neck. Plus, I'd much rather have a physical disc with some nice artwork and good liner notes anyway (especially for opera).

I was thinking in terms of downloading and then burning to physical discs.

You may be right, but, boy, I sure hope you are wrong.

I absolutely despise managing music on my computer. Making sure that everything is named in a consistent and useful manner is a huge pain in the neck. Plus, I'd much rather have a physical disc with some nice artwork and good liner notes anyway (especially for opera).

I feel exactly the same way about music on PCs. I feel that collecting CD,SACD,DVDA in their original boxes, etc is just like collecting books, I like to to take a look a liner notes, pictures, graphics, art, etc everything that comes in those jewel boxes while I'm enjoying the music.

I feel exactly the same way about music on PCs. I feel that collecting CD,SACD,DVDA in their original boxes, etc is just like collecting books, I like to to take a look a liner notes, pictures, graphics, art, etc everything that comes in those jewel boxes while I'm enjoying the music.

And like a collectible book, a collectible title on SACD/DVD-A/CD/vinyl will appreciate in value....which can hardly be said for a computer file.

And like a collectible book, a collectible title on SACD/DVD-A/CD/vinyl will appreciate in value....which can hardly be said for a computer file.

That's an excellent point!!!!!

I like it both ways. I own all (99%) of my music on CD's (about 3000) but have them all ripped to my Mac Pro using Apple Lossless. I have Airpots for a full home music server. I wish there was a way to do my DVD-A/SA-CD's this way so I could use Playlists to play them in the order I want.

I've read throgh this thread from beginning to end and at this point I really don't care what format is used. Looking at Blu Ray for example the only "Music" Blu Ray's out there are Live concerts. For me the problem has always been a lack of good surround mixes that made you want to come back and get more. So far the best have been the older Quad re-releases in DVD-Audio and SACD and when you read a review of Quadorphiliac that says Frank Zappa was a head of his time in experimenting in quad back in the 70's that says something about how little interest there must be from todays artists in doing new and wild things in a surround mix! If they put them on MP3's I'd get them that way!

I was a real early adopter and here I'll date myself. I got into quad in a big way but being a poor high school student I had to by a Craig 8track quad player, 4 car speakers and a 12 volt convert and set it up in my room. Granted the sonic quality of the 8tracks were limited, but the quad mixes more than made up for them. Nilsson Shmillson Jump into the Fire, The whole D.S.O.T.M. album, Frankenstien from Edgar Winter They only Come out at Night all put you in the middle of the music! Each new 8 track for me was like opening a new world of sonic delights.

So at this point I'm more disappointed with the artists not looking at 5.1 or 7.1 as a new way to express themselves. Purests may not like it, but then as soon as musicians whent to electric instruments the sound was no longer "Pure" anyway.

By the way I'm referring to new music and artists here as although I like the old stuff on occassion I get bored by it as I know it so well. I like newer groups too like Puddle of Mud, Nickelback, The Bravery, The North Mississippi All stars, Southern Culture on the Skids, Smash Mouth 3 Doors Down, Green Day, Foo Fighters, Linkin Park and others.

Why aren't they doing 5.1 or 7.1 mixes inany format! Heck DTS 5.1 is always available! That still sounds better than those quad 8 track tapes.

Well enough ranting for now.

You may be right, but, boy, I sure hope you are wrong.

I absolutely despise managing music on my computer. Making sure that everything is named in a consistent and useful manner is a huge pain in the neck. Plus, I'd much rather have a physical disc with some nice artwork and good liner notes anyway (especially for opera).

Amen Brother! I like the whole cd experience and not the onesy top download approach!

As much as I like technology this particular fad is an achilles heel to our more traditional approach! I like reading the the supporting musicians, commentary, where they recorded and the whole gamut.

Everyone has to focus on optimizing the dollar and we are lost in the fray! It is not their fault or ours but we at the moment are simply being out voted!

Amen Brother! I like the whole cd experience and not the onesy top download approach!

As much as I like technology this particular fad is an achilles heel to our more traditional approach! I like reading the the supporting musicians, commentary, where they recorded and the whole gamut.

Everyone has to focus on optimizing the dollar and we are lost in the fray! It is not their fault or ours but we at the moment are simply being out voted!

As soon as there is a way to unencrypt and transfer all my MCH SACDs to MCH Flac I will do it and put the whole collection on a RAID device and buy one of the newer receivers that will take MCH Flac. As much as I love my SACD collection (300 and growing) there is no future for physical disks so I am resigned to just getting over it. This will be the way we buy hi def music in the future, Blu-ray has a shelf life of about 5 years max (sorry rural people, you will get high speed internet access eventually and your market is too small to support blu-ray on its own).

I guess, you could call buying downloads, being "Green" and all but I personally dislike the technology and prefer the physical medium for various reasons. Also, I would like to see more pop/rock releases from the 60's, 70's and 80's mastered in multichannel on sacd but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. So, in retrospect, I have very high hopes for Blu-ray or some other form of physical media on the music side.

I own all the classic Moody Blues albums on sacd and was very disappointed that they didn't continue to release their entire catalog in this particular format.

I guess, you could call buying downloads, being "Green" and all but I personally dislike the technology and prefer the physical medium for various reasons. Also, I would like to see more pop/rock releases from the 60's, 70's and 80's mastered in multichannel on sacd but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. So, in retrospect, I have very high hopes for Blu-ray or some other form of physical media on the music side.

I own all the classic Moody Blues albums on sacd and was very disappointed that they didn't continue to release their entire catalog in this particular format.

Ironically, unlike SACDs where classical music is dominant and pop almost non-existent, Blu-ray will probably succeed in the short term with pop music because of the visual aspect of the performance (it is good for hiding the fact that there is usually nothing happening of interest musically).

Ironically, unlike SACDs where classical music is dominant and pop almost non-existent, Blu-ray will probably succeed in the short term with pop music because of the visual aspect of the performance (it is good for hiding the fact that there is usually nothing happening of interest musically).

That's cold!

That's cold!

I noticed you didn't contest it though. ;)

Let's face it only the best stuff survives over time no matter what style the music is. The classical stuff that survives and gets recorded is the best of the best for the most part. The rest is long forgotten.

Hi, any good place to find hard to find dvd-a's or sacd's? I'm new to the technology, and I'm finding that the discs I really want to buy are not in print anymore :(

IE: Eagles Hotel California/DVD-A, Alison Krauss Now that I've found you/SACD etc...

I just bought a 58av to stream DSD and PCM over HDMI 1.2a. I hope the formats are not completely dead yet. I could never afford a nice enough system to warrant buying better than 44.1khz/16bit quality and now that I can, all the good discs are gone! The only advantage I see in DVD-A over SACD is that you can back up DVD-A's easily with DVDA explorer.

Hi, any good place to find hard to find dvd-a's or sacd's? I'm new to the technology, and I'm finding that the discs I really want to buy are not in print anymore :(

IE: Eagles Hotel California/DVD-A, Alison Krauss Now that I've found you/SACD etc...

I just bought a 58av to stream DSD and PCM over HDMI 1.2a. I hope the formats are not completely dead yet. I could never afford a nice enough system to warrant buying better than 44.1khz/16bit quality and now that I can, all the good discs are gone! The only advantage I see in DVD-A over SACD is that you can back up DVD-A's easily with DVDA explorer.

Amazon and eBay

I've read throgh this thread from beginning to end and at this point I really don't care what format is used. Looking at Blu Ray for example the only "Music" Blu Ray's out there are Live concerts. For me the problem has always been a lack of good surround mixes that made you want to come back and get more. So far the best have been the older Quad re-releases in DVD-Audio and SACD and when you read a review of Quadorphiliac that says Frank Zappa was a head of his time in experimenting in quad back in the 70's that says something about how little interest there must be from todays artists in doing new and wild things in a surround mix! If they put them on MP3's I'd get them that way!

I was a real early adopter and here I'll date myself. I got into quad in a big way but being a poor high school student I had to by a Craig 8track quad player, 4 car speakers and a 12 volt convert and set it up in my room. Granted the sonic quality of the 8tracks were limited, but the quad mixes more than made up for them. Nilsson Shmillson Jump into the Fire, The whole D.S.O.T.M. album, Frankenstien from Edgar Winter They only Come out at Night all put you in the middle of the music! Each new 8 track for me was like opening a new world of sonic delights.

So at this point I'm more disappointed with the artists not looking at 5.1 or 7.1 as a new way to express themselves. Purests may not like it, but then as soon as musicians whent to electric instruments the sound was no longer "Pure" anyway.

By the way I'm referring to new music and artists here as although I like the old stuff on occassion I get bored by it as I know it so well. I like newer groups too like Puddle of Mud, Nickelback, The Bravery, The North Mississippi All stars, Southern Culture on the Skids, Smash Mouth 3 Doors Down, Green Day, Foo Fighters, Linkin Park and others.

Why aren't they doing 5.1 or 7.1 mixes inany format! Heck DTS 5.1 is always available! That still sounds better than those quad 8 track tapes.

Well enough ranting for now.

Frankly I don't see how two channels would appeal more to the purist, at least not from a rational viewpoint. 5.1 or 7.1 has a much better foundation to reproduce sound in the way one wants. I agree wholeheartedly with you, what we need is more properly masted audi with more than two channels. High resolution and so on have questinable benifits, more channels can have huge benifits (if its properly implmented)

AtW

I read the comments about disliking the idea of storing music on a server and thought it was interesting. While each of us has our own preferences, and the views of those that like the physical medium are of course as valid as my dislike for them, I personally love the idea that I can sit and browse my collection - album art and all but no liner notes which never did much for me anyway - and call up whatever album I feel like listening to with a few clicks. Occasionally I will start one album only to realize I am not in the mood for that particular one and then navigate over to something else.

All of my CDs are in boxes waiting for my next move. They have now been in the same boxes for several moves and it does not look like they are coming out any time soon. I so much prefer the ability to load up a variety of albums for a session if I am busy doing something or just to grab one at a time as they strike me. Lossless compression keeps the quality at 100% and the convenience simply cannot be beat.

For the record I am 45 and most of my stuff is a mix of classic rock, Jazz and New Age.

It just shows to go you that we all have our tastes and there is simply no accounting for them! :D

I have music loaded on my hard drive and I listen to it and appreciate its flexibility. I think the major concern about the disappearance of physical media from the market (should that happen) regards the potential for disaster if the drive(s) fail. If an electrical surge (I have protectors, but they are not foolproof) kills my drives, or a virus corrupts them or water damage kills my computer and so on, IF I don't have the physical media already, I will have to re-purchase a lot of music. Even if nothing else entered the equation (regarding playback quality), I would still want my physical media as the ultimate backup.

I haven't bought a DVD-A in who knows when but I still pick up some SACDs from time to time.

Well, my feeling is the SACD/DVD-A formats failed because there were never enough artist to choose from. If the record industry had made all of their artist available in either format, they would still be big sellers in SACD/DVD-A. The formats were never given the chance to succeed. When these formats were started they should have released all CD's with the capabilities to be multichannel. They would have been selling more albums and maybe would have better recordings today instead losing all of their business to the compressed formats. Just an opinion. But who wouldn't have liked to have a choice between either the "purist 2 channel" or multichannel options.

5,800th SACD title posted at sa-cd.net today.

Blu-ray has a shelf life of about 5 years max


Are you talking about the shelf life of a product line that may or may not catch on in the market place?

Or are you talking about the shelf life of a disc purchased in a retail store?


If you're telling me that if I walk into a story, purchase a disc today, and won't be able to play that same disc in 5.5 years, then I would say there is a serious problem

Are you talking about the shelf life of a product line that may or may not catch on in the market place?

Or are you talking about the shelf life of a disc purchased in a retail store?


If you're telling me that if I walk into a story, purchase a disc today, and won't be able to play that same disc in 5.5 years, then I would say there is a serious problem

Just FUD.

Are you talking about the shelf life of a product line that may or may not catch on in the market place?

Or are you talking about the shelf life of a disc purchased in a retail store?


If you're telling me that if I walk into a story, purchase a disc today, and won't be able to play that same disc in 5.5 years, then I would say there is a serious problem

Time before it is no longer considered a viable product. It all depends on how fast we get fairly universal high speed internet access.

Frankly, to me it isn't worth the extra cost over a DVD for 90% of the content out there. If they want it to succeed they should discontinue DVDs quickly and lower the cost substantially.

Time before it is no longer considered a viable product. It all depends on how fast we get fairly universal high speed internet access.

Frankly, to me it isn't worth the extra cost over a DVD for 90% of the content out there. If they want it to succeed they should discontinue DVDs quickly and lower the cost substantially.


The cost of bluray software doesn't seem to be something that will attract most people to the technology.

I have been wanting to buy a player for approximately 2 years now but I'm real picky about features and price - and won't budge on either.

I am probably getting close to finding a player with the features I want at the price I want - BUT - then I wander into the software section at my local bluray retailer, and I say "Now - WHY? - do I want to buy these titles??"


In my case, I won't do downloads for a more pragmatic reason. I can buy a whopping fast broadband servce (like 6 Mbps - or maybe even double that) but I won't PAY for one. I'm quite content to buy the slowest DSL speed there is because it meets my internet needs quite well.

Eventually ISPs are going to start metering their services and force the biggest downloaders to pay extra. But I will never fall into the category. At least not because of movie downloading...

Theres always a chance that my kids might suck down a lot of data with their xbox - but generally they don't seem to complain too hard that I won't raise our speed from the 500 kbps speed (the lowest AT&T will sell me).

The reason why High definition audio formats never took off is obvious IMO.

1.) There wasnt enough advertisement and demonstration of the product.

2.) A lot of the surround systems simply arent all that great, (HTIB)

3.) Not enough music choices, half of it is old stuff, that no one really cares for but the given few.

4.) Companies refused to bring down the price on the players.

5.) good sounding inexpensive speakers can be made, but only a few are willing to manufacture them, the only good cheap speakers (under $300.00 a pair) I can come up with are Sony's "SS" lineup, Insignia's Bookshelf speakers and 5.1 speaker package. A few of polks "monitor line" which In my opinion arent really that great to begin with, and a few obscure brands nobody has heard of.

6.) People don't listen to music like they used to.

7.) Audiophiles try to keep the good formats to themselves, and kill the ones that they dislike or are afraid of. (The CD, Quadraphonic sound, Mp3's)

I like it both ways. I own all (99%) of my music on CD's (about 3000) but have them all ripped to my Mac Pro using Apple Lossless. I have Airpots for a full home music server. I wish there was a way to do my DVD-A/SA-CD's this way so I could use Playlists to play them in the order I want.

Hey William,
You can always record through the line-in of your mac pro or buy a nice audio interface, like the apogee unit. My macbook pro plays back 96/24 pcm files from a sound devices recorder in Soundtrack pro. They sound great. I listen to my records that way.
If you wanted to go crazy there are multi-channel sound cards in the pro music area.
I have a meridian surround sound system that has a spdif out that passes 88 and 96k at 24 bits. It's only stereo but for headphones it's nice.
Cheers,
Sam

New SACD releases added to sa-cd.net for the first 6 months of:

2007....330
2008....314
2009....309

This is not so bad, given the economy downturn around the world.

2009....309

in what genres?

in what genres?

There was no breakdown in the number of releases for each genre, but you can assume the majority are of classical music.

yeah just as I thought :|

There was no breakdown in the number of releases for each genre, but you can assume the majority are of classical music.Thank goodness. :D

Thank goodness. :D

While I beg to differ, I'm glad I purchased most of the smooth jazz SACDs when they were available. I own about 200 SACDs. I listened to a Hiroshima SACD last night, and almost forgot how good SACD sounds through my Sony SCD-C555ES. In fact, I'm seriously contemplating buying your highly recommended Sony SCD-XA5400ES.:D

While I beg to differ, I'm glad I purchased most of the smooth jazz SACDs when they were available. I own about 200 SACDs. I listened to a Hiroshima SACD last night, and almost forgot how good SACD sounds through my Sony SCD-C555ES. In fact, I'm seriously contemplating buying your highly recommended Sony SCD-XA5400ES.:DWell, mine was a highly personal response. I do appreciate that SACD might have had a chance to survive had there been a larger repertoire to appeal to a mass audience. OTOH, I am grateful for the continued classical releases.

Thanks to SACD, I've gone from being a dabbler in classical music to an avid listener (wish I had the time to become a knowledgeable avid listener, but there are moments where I think relative ignorance is bliss and I can live with a performance that might not make the cut for expert listeners. Saves me from having to buy multiple performances quite as often as I might otherwise).