Is SACD a dead format?

[admin_exported]

A few years ago I bought the Marantz DV7001. I didn't buy it for SACD but principally as a DVD/CD player. My favourite band Depeche Mode subsequently remastered their back collection into DVD-Audio and SACD as a hybrid mix. I wouldn't usually have bothered rebuying a full collection but as I was curious regarding the SACD quality and a big fan I bought the lot.

Now I would know all of this albums intimately and was ready to listen to the difference. I wasn't quite prepared by just how much though. I'd already played several CD's while I waited to source all the extra interconnects and noticed the extra separation and detail. Boy oh boy when I switched to SACD, I nearly fell off the chair the whole soundstage move a mile wider, the detail was incredible. My best mate is a big DM fan as well, when he listened from the first note his jaw dropped.

I've since bought several other SACD's, Roxy Music - Avalon and NIN - Downward Spiral both very impressive plus I am waiting for an order of Human League - Dare which I am desperately worried will never come.

I've recently acquired Depeche Mode's latest album in DVD-Audio, no SACD version. Good album but you can hear the difference in sound quality.

I'm actually feeling quite sad typing this because I honestly feel the format SACD is dead. Many AV amps and DVD players cater for the SACD format and in my opinion it is a clear winner for quality and involvement yet there are very few titles on the back catalogues and I have not seen much at all from new releases, indeed a backward step if you look at DM.

How do you lot feel?

I know there are other SACD listeners, why is this happening?

I think it is partly to do with the advent of downloadable music and the broad ownership of DVD players. Is SACD not considered a profitable line of media?

I've heard how good music can sound and the source is always the place to start. I would like record companies to know that I'm disappointed and they should think more about the many Hi-Fi enthusiasts who occupy the globe.

Anybody with me? 

 

[idc]

Hi adamshaw. For me the killer is that SACDs don't play on CDPs and they are a format change too many. I am surprised that blu ray has taken off so much since such discs do not play on DVDs. But I suppose it is down to successful marketing, a big budget and determination to get a new format launched. The real competition is from PC/Mac music files and downloads. There are loads of formats, but also many converters available, so fewer formating problems. The rise of 'better than CD' bit rates will, I fear for yourself, eventually kill off SACD.

 

[Tear Drop]

SACD was compromised in so many ways from the very start so it never really had a chance. As someone who listens to LPs as the best source of recorded music currently available, I still know that digital, if properly implemented, will produce results which are phenomenal, but that implementation has unfortunately not happened yet, and there are numerous reasons why it won't for the foreseeable future, regardless of which format or method you choose, so your only choice at present remains the best compromise which you can live with - if that is still SACD, then stick with it and try and make the most of it.

 

[Anonymous]

Can you tell me more True Drop?

Compromised from the start?

I'm interested as I don't know much about the start of SACD.

There is extra expense in hardware, would I be right in thinking that this format cannot pass throught HDMI because of the quantity of data?ÿ

 

[Anonymous]

adamshaw:
True Drop?

Dont know why but that really tickled me lol! (no offence by the way just a typo)

 

[Anonymous]

Whoops. True Drop Explodes doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

 

[nads]

Most SACDs will play on CDPs as they are dual format.

Sony and Marrants have released SACDPs this year.

 

[Tear Drop]

adamshaw:
Can you tell me more True Drop?

Compromised from the start?

I'm interested as I don't know much about the start of SACD.

There is extra expense in hardware, would I be right in thinking that this format cannot pass throught HDMI because of the quantity of data?ÿ

From what I understand the original 4-bit DSD SACD format which was developed was stunning, but for commercial reasons it was compromised and became the 1-bit DSD format that now exists and is merely a shadow of what it could have been, defeating the object of developing a so called high resolution format in the first place. SACD, regardless of how good it could have been, was really only ever of interest to this niche section of the market that we audio geeks occupy, so was never really financially viable - add to that the high initial cost of discs and the fact that you needed a new player and it was even more unlikely to succeed. The format war was never really resolved, even with the 'death' of DVD-A, SACD didn't really go anywhere. The catalogue has been populated mainly by classical, with smatterings of pop and jazz in there, but nothing to really engage the general music buying public. Another point is that Sony really didn't push the format very much at all, certainly not with anything like the vigour they pushed Blu-ray. The copy protection issues also acted as another early nail in the SACD coffin.

 

[Anonymous]

So when you say copy protection, you mean there is deliberately no way of digitally copying SACD?

I can live with the loss of SACD if I can believe that the SACD's I hold can be copied and saved to play on other media. Otherwise my DV7001 wil have to stay in situ until that time taking up space where a future player could go.

It's a little annoying that SACD was pushed half heartedly and seems to be purposely dropped to leave BluRay as the all new king of formats.ÿ

 

[Anonymous]

adamshaw:
So when you say copy protection, you mean there is deliberately no way of digitally copying SACD?

I can live with the loss of SACD if I can believe that the SACD's I hold can be copied and saved to play on other media. Otherwise my DV7001 wil have to stay in situ until that time taking up space where a future player could go.

It's a little annoying that SACD was pushed half heartedly and seems to be purposely dropped to leave BluRay as the all new king of formats.ÿ

That's correct, and some cynical folk have suggested that's why Sony created the format to begin with. Nearly all SACDs have a CD layer, which is copiable.

 

[Anonymous]

So why not simply bring out hi-def audio on BluRay? You could just go straight to market with it. Region Free. Multichannel if needs be.

Is DTS MA at it's highest bit-rate a match or better than SACD?

 

[Andrew Everard]

A dead format? I think not - most of the big Japanese companies have several players in their ranges, including of course the brand-new Marantz KI Pearl model.

 

[oldleodensian]

adamshaw:would I be right in thinking that this format cannot pass throught HDMI because of the quantity of data?ÿ

I play SACD from a Pioneer DVLX50 linked to my Yamaha 763 by HDMI; it sounds great with no problems with 5.1 surround.

 

[Andrew Everard]

And I from an Oppo player into the Onkyo 875, and recently from the Sony 5400ES player into the 5400ES amp.

And yes, with HATS on...

 

[matthewpiano]

I think SACD has taken off much more in the classical world. Record labels such as LSO Live and BIS continue to support the format with some excellent releases (which I only ever hear the CD layer of now!), and Sony BMG have kept the flame alive with the RCA Living Stereo re-issues as well.

In some ways I wish I still had an SACD player, and its something which I might get again later on so that I can release the extra resolution on all my LSO Live CDs (I buy pretty much everything released on that label because the performances and recording quality are uniformly superb).

 

[Andrew Everard]

on the LSO Live discs

 

[manicm]

idc:Hi adamshaw. For me the killer is that SACDs don't play on CDPs and they are a format change too many. I am surprised that blu ray has taken off so much since such discs do not play on DVDs. But I suppose it is down to successful marketing, a big budget and determination to get a new format launched. The real competition is from PC/Mac music files and downloads. There are loads of formats, but also many converters available, so fewer formating problems. The rise of 'better than CD' bit rates will, I fear for yourself, eventually kill off SACD.

Most SACDs printed were hybrids i.e. they could be played on any CDP and when one upgraded to a SACD player then the value would not be lost, so I don't understand your and others' statements about this here.

If there was a truly horrid format - implementation wise - it was DVD-A. It included no normal 'CD' or PCM layer and most often one needed to switch the telly/display to navigate initially.

In terms of compatibility and usability SACD has been much aligned, and often because of a lack of facts.

 

[Anonymous]

I am still a little dumb founded by the attitude towards SACD. I think Andrew said that SACD is alive and well EDITED BY MODS for racist language. I looked it up on Wikipedia last night http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD and it states that 'As of May 2009, the number of titles released on SACD is approximately 20 times larger than available in any other high-resolution format.'

Well I cannot get the music I wnat on SACD and as I stated earlier DM have all their back catalogue in SACD yet their latest release is on DVD-Audio, why?

There is another thread about what makes a difference to sound quality with very interesting comments. Of course there is lots of impressive equipment about from small to excorbitant prices but the thing I always knew was that to make a good system you have to start at the source. Well SACD kicks the pants out of CD and will work on a CDP as a hybrid.

There are so many albums I would like to hear at there best. Jean Michel-Jarre - Equinoxe, Frankie Goes To Hollywood - Welcome To The Pleasure Dome, Prodigy - Fat Of The Land, lets hear these in the best possible way.

I'm all for easy accessible music on the internet but don't let that spoil my enjoyment. I've heard that more and more music produced is being brickwalled to make them sound good on the MP3 player. How could I listen to Elbow - One Day Like This in that format!

Would it be possible for What Hi-Fi to quiz the record industry and find out what the plan for the future is?

Let them know that there are some people who want top quality music.

 

[kaledi]

adamshaw,

I'm also a big DM fan and bought into their back catalogue for a second time because of the hi res formats (and the added bonuses really).

Anyhow, I recently bought an ex-display Marantz DV7600, universal player, which I actually have hooked up in my study, which is therefore 2 channel. However, even in 2-channel mode the format, to my ears is impressive, and I agree, given the a single disc can accomodate a 2-channel, 5.1 channel mix along with a CD version, it is rather annoying that more 'popular' music is not published in this format. I blame iplods personally, and download music, the majority of people don't really care about music sounding good, and therefore publishing companies themselves don't really care!

Another format I 'discovered' on these DM discs was DTS96/24 (I've also recently upgraded my AV amp to Marantz SR6003, with Quad Lite2 speaker system - when will these be reviewed? - in my lounge), which I can now decode with my new amp. My initial listen to Violator was - wow, infact, I turned it on just to see it work, and 40 min later was listening to the end of the album. It was like listening to the first CD I bought back in 1990 (a technics seperate, hooked up to headphones because I couldn't afford an amp or speakers!) for the very first time. I was truly gobsmacked. Now I haven't gotten around to making a comparison to SACD, becasue the longe just has a Panasonic DVD recorder, but my experience with these DM multichannel mixes really has made me long for more bands to release more hi res material. Of note, the DTS mix was considerably better than the Dolby Digital, but I'm making no comment on the SACD mix (different systems of course), and I'm a bit dissapointed that my Marantz DVD player does not pass SACD over HDMI, because my receiver will decode it, and then I could have done a true comparison of formats. Final point about the DM's latest album, I also was dissapointed that there was no SACD mix, and just as bad the DTS mix is bog standard 48/16 or what ever DVD-V spec DTS is.

 

[matthewpiano]

The standard CD of the new DM album still sounds superb though.

 

[progwardy]

I really hope not.

I have just purchased a load of Chandos classical SACDs (including all their available Vaughan Williams symphonies) and most (if not all) are stunning. I've also got hold of their new SACD release of Bernstein's Mass - to use a much used quote I was 'gobsmacked'.

Genesis have now released all their back catalogue in Dolby Digital 5.1 and SACD. I believe the label and fans consider this to be a real success. Again, the revelation of parts of a piece of music I thought I knew really well hitherto unheard or buried has been a real joy; rediscovering old favourites really is a pleasurable way to spend a couple of hours. I agree that you put a disc on to see what it sounds like and then get totally engrossed!

Good hardware seems to be a little bit of an issue. I certainly can't find the Pioneer DV LX50 anywhere for £200, and I've now convinced myself to go to the other end of the wallet emptying stakes and that I need an Arcam DV139 (and then an upgrade to the rest of my elderly Denon / Mission system....)

So let's buy it while it's still available and spread the good word / notes and enjoy!

 

[matthewpiano]

Big thumbs up for Chandos from me. They've always been good at producing quality recordings. Just listening to the LSO/Hickox recording of Vaughan-Williams' 'A London Symphony' (CD) and its sublime.

 

[Anonymous]

I will keep buying but there is a limit to what is available. I ordered Human League - Dare which is rare on SACD over a month ago, the website tracking just shows it on order. I bet you when pushed they'll tell me that it is discontinued or unavailable.

As already discussed, the Depeche Mode SACD's have just renewed my vigour for their music. I can hear more of the music as the layers are peeled apart and played in higher precision separately.

I might try some classical music but I want mainstream pop. If you try and search for SACD the majority of titles are classical or folksy acoustic stuff. Imagine what Muse - Hysteria could sound likeÿ

 

[the record spot]

progwardy:

Genesis have now released all their back catalogue in Dolby Digital 5.1 and SACD. I believe the label and fans consider this to be a real success. Again, the revelation of parts of a piece of music I thought I knew really well hitherto unheard or buried has been a real joy; rediscovering old favourites really is a pleasurable way to spend a couple of hours. I agree that you put a disc on to see what it sounds like and then get totally engrossed!

Glad you enjoy it, and big fan of the band though I am (going back almost 30 years now, as will be next year), I have to pull up short with the number we got pulled on us for the Genesis SACD remixes.

I'm a big fan of SACD as well, but like any other medium, it's only as good as the underlying quality of the recording, and in the case of Genesis' catalogue, the remastering and production as well. The Genesis project, if you'll pardon the Star Trek II-ism, crashed and burned with the first boxset 1976-1982.

Why? They took the remix, added all the bits we never really heard before, but crushed the dynamic range to death on that first boxset - EQ, compression, the lot. I've got multiple copies of all the albums, from the first right up to the last one. The best version of A Trick of the Tail I've heard was the AAD CD release. Of those, there are a few to choose from; the pinnacle being a Japanese version which was manufactured by Sanyo for the US Atco (Atlantic) label. I picked this up off Ebay, along with similar versions for Wind and Wuthering and Duke and I've never heard any of those albums sound so good. Total cost for all three - £45.

Trick could be hi-res and the thing is it utterly canes the remix/remaster by a country mile. The soundstage is astonishing and it's a reference disc for me now.

I didn't need the second (1983-1998) boxset, I didn't think the content merited the asking price, and the bonus disc was lacking in worthwhile content (a huge opportunity missed for that period I think). The 1970-1975 boxset is much better IMO, it's not perfect, but as Genesis didn't really start sounding consistently good on record until Selling England By The Pound in 1973, that makes the first three in that boxset in place to enjoy what should be a big step forward.

For the most part it's successful, but Trespass, for all its' new detail and clarity sounds flat to me. The detail is there, but the dynamic range is gone - the loud bits and the quiet bits are on the same level. Pick up a copy of the US MCA release; they turn on Ebay all the time, HMV in London had a few as well. £9 well spent. It's not better than the SACD, but it is the best version I've heard yet outwith that one. It's like they are equals for different reasons.

The fans fall into two distinct camps - those who love them and those who have some serious misgivings about the process. Then again, Tony Banks had his hand on the tiller for this one as much as Nick Davis did. I think maybe a little too much on it and only highlights for me Clinton Heylin's (he of the Dylan biography and history of the bootleg tome) finely observed point that the artist doesn't necessarily know what's best for their back catalogue.

All I'd suggest is you try and look out those recordings I mentioned - if you can get the copy of Trick I mentioned, you're onto a winner. It really is that good.