SACD's Survival

[MCDave]

Sony could have done so much more for SACD. It was created to be a replacement for the standard CD, yet Sony did little to promote it. The first player was a stereo-only, $2000 model, aimed at audiophiles. Fine, but if they really meant for it to become the next generation of the CD, where were popular priced players? Car audio systems with SACD? Portables? They had a great library of recordings they could draw from, both new and previous releases. Sony could have used SACD to promote surround sound for the car, once they saw the potential in adding surround to the format, and hybrid discs, to allow them to be backward-compatible with existing players. In the early 2000's, Sony's SACD's were single-layer discs that a standard CD player couldn't play. Imagine if Sony had treated the original CD that way! I realize these companies are in it to make money, but I have to wonder how many times their decisions led them astray.

It's true, neither SACD nor DVD-A, which came out about the same time at the turn of the century, weren't promoted enough. BUT, remember that MP3 files also took off at the same time, and people much preferred downloading free mp3s from Napster to spending big money on high-res players and discs. If the timing were different, these high-res disc formats might have done much better from the outset. So I think the convenience of mp3, coupled with the high cost of high-res entry is what stifled these formats in their infancy. Not to mention that multichannel discs required a lot more speakers and a MC processor. Mp3 only required an Ipod and cheap earbuds, which also allowed you to take your music anywhere.

Fortunately for me, SACD (my favorite format) is still thriving in classical, jazz and blues (my favorite genres).

 

[par4ken]

I have grown to appreciate SACD for several reasons. When I used my Pioneer Elite DVD player I thought that SACD sounded good but DVD-A sounded better. Then I got the Oppo BDP-103 and listening to SACD in their native DSD format for the first time "WOW" did they sound good. When converted by the player to PCM they sounded perhaps a bit smoother but with much less detail. Some here still don't believe that there's a difference in sound but I came to that conclusion by simply listening. I had the preconceived notion that there would be no difference, so any bias was the other way, in favour of PCM.

The second reason that SACD sounds so good is that usually they do not suffer from the butchering of the loudness wars. They usually have the same DR values as the original LPs. The transfers are done more direct from source to disc.

PCM is handy for enabling digital mixdown and other signal processing but usually DSD is more pure.

That being said some of the absolute best sound seems to be from Blu-ray audio! Sadly now a large number of those are suffering from the same brickwalling effects as regular CDs so often do! Why, Why, Why!!!

 

[mandrix]

Well here's a radical idea. To hell with physical formats altogether. I don't need them!

Just sell me the music in .iso format, whether it be SACD/DVDA/BDA/BDV, as long as it's lossless. Forgo the disc manufacturing for I no longer care. For the price I'm paying, hell, give me at least two formats in .iso format of one of the above listed, give me a key so I can download it for a reasonable period of time just like when I buy software online, sell it to me for a reasonable price, and I will be happy!
OK?
If not that, then MKV with video where possible and format permits.

Attach that unique ID with my name so I can re-download it if something happens. A reasonable amount of time, not a lifetime, you know. Say, 1 year.


I have 2 Oppo's boxed up in the closet, One Samsung as well. I gave one away to my Stepson. I have one Oppo sitting with my audio gear that isn't even plugged into power right now because I hardly ever use it, even though it's jailbroke and I can stream almost anything to it and it will play it.

I play everything from my Windows 11 pc through my AVR via HDMI. PowerDVD, VLC, Foobar. Actually VLC just keeps getting better I don't know if PowerDVD even needed anymore?
My entire surround collection is on my pc. 11 HDD but duplication of smaller formats and HDD's on the shelf with copies of BD's. Much better than the many racks full of surround titles in my living room!

I, too, loved having physical discs. It's proof of our paid efforts, it's something you can hold, look at and treasure.

I now say poof! Don't need it any more. Don't need disc players, expensive or cheap. Don't want to keep ripping discs or building/buying racks.

I'm truly in the digital age at last. Get with the program, Record Companies. & Artists! Everyone else join me if you dare!

...and bless IAA for leading the way!

 

[mandrix]

SACD sees a few releases every year. So, thankfully does DVDA, though fewer.

I still would rather have them in .iso format since they are so easily played. Better yet, BD's. But as long as it's lossless, I'm good. Give me Atmos when possible and other immersive formats as well.

The record labels could provide graphics in .jpg or png format to look at to accompany whatever format. Extensive graphics such as would normally cover a packaged release. Still cheaper than glass mastering a disc and printed graphics, hopefully driving costs down.

I think, however, this is just a pipe dream. The labels would rather embrace lossy streaming as the new big thing and let the disc formats die out again. I just offer this as an alternative to keep lossless music alive and affordable, though many won't embrace it, I know.

 

[barfle]

I’m declaring the death of SACD, Blu ray etc. in my life. I discovered Apple spatial, streaming etc a couple of weeks ago. Hey fellow old dudes, it’s the end of the road, time to make way for a new way. So your 150 dollar set with no surround disc, Talking to you Beatles. It is a joke, I don‘t need you or you 300 Mr. Pinky Floyd. Sorry. Thanks though for Animals and the “nice price”.

I’m not going to limit myself that way, but to each his own.

Yeah, I’m a geezer, being old enough to remember the introduction of quad LPs, not to mention LPs. I like playing physical media. You don’t seem to, but man, what you’re cutting out of your life, and doing it apparently willfully. My condolences.

 

[jaybird100]

I’m not going to limit myself that way, but to each his own.

Yeah, I’m a geezer, being old enough to remember the introduction of quad LPs, not to mention LPs. I like playing physical media. You don’t seem to, but man, what you’re cutting out of your life, and doing it apparently willfully. My condolences.

I'm with you, Barfle. I'm also a geezer, and proud of it. Like you, I remember the introduction of 45's, LP's, stereo LP's, quad LP's, etc. There's a certain satisfaction to placing a record on a turntable, manually lowering the stylus into the lead-in groove, and then groovin' on the music. Gotta get up and turn it over? So what? It's all part of the experience. But when it comes to downloads, one good crash of the hard drive can wipe it all out. Sure, you can back your files up, but what's to say they won't be corrupted, somewhere along the way? With physical media, you have the medium right there. With careful handling, it can last virtually forever. And you can listen to it whenever you want! So give me records, CD's, SACD's... you get the idea.

 

[Todd 987]

I’m not going to limit myself that way, but to each his own.

Yeah, I’m a geezer, being old enough to remember the introduction of quad LPs, not to mention LPs. I like playing physical media. You don’t seem to, but man, what you’re cutting out of your life, and doing it apparently willfully. My condolences.

That is a wrong assumption, not wanting a disc etc. I will still buy multichannel releases in a physical format, but they seem to be fewer releases and more bloated packages that are big bucks that I won’t commit to when I can get the atmos stream from Apple for a fraction of the cost and get more music. Way of the world. Horse and buggy to car. LP’s to cassettes etc and now with technology streaming. Why fight it? I don’t have enough time left in me to get excited about a disc or stream when it comes out of the same speakers. Give me my music. Do I love the sound of a V8? Damn straight. But guess what? I can get an electric car that will blow it out of the water zero to sixty. No rumble, but time and life move on. Just because I’m 65 doesn’t mean I can’t still open my mind and accept the new realities. Makes life easier. I enjoy my music. The record industry is dictating to us that we will be streaming. I just accept it. And now I finally got my Dwight Twilley music thanks to streaming. There is an upside. Thanks for listening or commenting.

 

[ssully]

I have grown to appreciate SACD for several reasons. When I used my Pioneer Elite DVD player I thought that SACD sounded good but DVD-A sounded better. Then I got the Oppo BDP-103 and listening to SACD in their native DSD format for the first time "WOW" did they sound good. When converted by the player to PCM they sounded perhaps a bit smoother but with much less detail. Some here still don't believe that there's a difference in sound but I came to that conclusion by simply listening. I had the preconceived notion that there would be no difference, so any bias was the other way, in favour of PCM.

Unconscious bias doesn't really work that way, but anyway.

The second reason that SACD sounds so good is that usually they do not suffer from the butchering of the loudness wars. They usually have the same DR values as the original LPs. The transfers are done more direct from source to disc.

Hopefully.

PCM is handy for enabling digital mixdown and other signal processing but usually DSD is more pure.

Not technically, no. It really depends on how it's all done.

That being said some of the absolute best sound seems to be from Blu-ray audio! Sadly now a large number of those are suffering from the same brickwalling effects as regular CDs so often do! Why, Why, Why!!!

BluRay being simply high sample rate/bit depth PCM. PCM is why it can be 'brickwalled' -- you can't do much digital manipulation in DSD. (An SACD can be brickwalled too, if its source is -- see Oasis What's the Story Morning Glory -- that's baked in to the mix). As to why its done at all, someone somewhere thinks consumers prefer it that way. Louder usually does sound initially 'better' in an A/B comparison -- there's those unconscious effects again.

 

[ssully]

Well here's a radical idea. To hell with physical formats altogether. I don't need them!

Just sell me the music in .iso format, whether it be SACD/DVDA/BDA/BDV, as long as it's lossless. Forgo the disc manufacturing for I no longer care. For the price I'm paying, hell, give me at least two formats in .iso format of one of the above listed, give me a key so I can download it for a reasonable period of time just like when I buy software online, sell it to me for a reasonable price, and I will be happy!
OK?

I'll go further. I don't care if it's lossless. I have DTS and Dolby releases that sound amazing. Just give me consistently excellent mastering,.

(Not that there's any good reason it should be lossy. Bandwidth is plentiful now.)

As for geezerdom, I grew up with LPs. I don't miss them, apart from the large format artwork.

 

[atrocity]

Sure, you can back your files up, but what's to say they won't be corrupted, somewhere along the way?

Mirrored storage using ZFS.

FLAC -t

(Not really taking sides here as someone who appreciates streaming A LOT but also buys discs all the time, just pointing out that there's some pretty solid storage tech out there.)

 

[mandrix]

I'm with you, Barfle. I'm also a geezer, and proud of it. Like you, I remember the introduction of 45's, LP's, stereo LP's, quad LP's, etc. There's a certain satisfaction to placing a record on a turntable, manually lowering the stylus into the lead-in groove, and then groovin' on the music. Gotta get up and turn it over? So what? It's all part of the experience. But when it comes to downloads, one good crash of the hard drive can wipe it all out. Sure, you can back your files up, but what's to say they won't be corrupted, somewhere along the way? With physical media, you have the medium right there. With careful handling, it can last virtually forever. And you can listen to it whenever you want! So give me records, CD's, SACD's... you get the idea.

Well I'm an old geezer as well, friends. I had a very good and for the time expensive Quad system in the early 70's. I had a Thorenz TT. CD-4. Q8. Saved up for and paid for on military pay.

But my music interests segue right into my computer interests. As for storage worries, HDD storage is cheaper all the time, and I have copies on multiple HDD's. Certainly a more portable and smaller format than the big honking racks filling my living room. How big is your collection? Once you get x number of racks it gets ridiculous, space wise. I ran out of space horizontally and had to start going vertically with storage almost to the ceiling.

Yet I do understand wanting to have physical discs. or disks, if you prefer. I'm just tired of all the hubris that goes with them...bad pressings, disc players, possible disc rot, need to rip for those of us that prefer to backup/listen on the computer...

In fact I don't care one way or another if discs continue to be made. It's fine with me either way! I just want my music in a good, portable format that gives me what I would get from the disc. The answer for me in the case of BD is an .iso file. Just sell me the damn .iso file, charge me a fair price, I don't need the packaging or disc and your damned jacked up prices that pay for your villa on the Riviera. Pay the Artists a fair price and give me a decent price and be content with a profit instead of a windfall.

 

[mandrix]

I wanted to add...for those that look at my ideas as, well, that just makes it easy to bootleg stuff.
I got news for you friends...it already is. How do you think we rip our encrypted discs and copy them to our HDD's? I personally don't consider that theft, although you might and I'm fine with that.
We agree to disagree. I won't broach the legal ramifications further or argue it, as it always, always leads to ....nothing good.

DVDA's were supposed to have an "unbreakable" copy protection system. Broken. Quickly, at that.
SACD's can't be copied. Thwarted.
Blu Ray Disc encryption. Bypassed.
DVD's? Please.

I assure you I am not here advocating for piracy anyway. I just felt I'd be remiss if I did not mention this. I'm just advocating for music in a lossless format that is convenient, full featured, compact and storable with none of the headaches of discs.
Not calling for the end of disc manufacturing, merely an alternative.
But, the day will come, mark my words, when discs will no longer be made. All these disc players we own will be boat anchors or end up in the closet or junkyard. Are any SACD's still made in the USA? Nope. Are any DVDA's made in the USA? Nope, at least not glass mastered in both cases that I know of.

A stronger advocate for surround music, or any music really, than I you will not find. I just have my preference of delivery system. That's all.

I have to wonder what the profit margin is for Bandcamp and such that provide downloads for Artists. I mean, if providing a download service for music were not profitable, how long could it exist? I don't know all the answers, profit margins may be slim indeed, IDK. But the fact that music CAN be paid for, downloaded conveniently to a computer, must be appealing to a broad swath of people, no? Why not extend the format range further, from flac to m4a to mp4 to mkv to iso, the latter 4 being spatial formats when available of course. All are there already except iso, which could then be burned to disc if desired, or left on the pc to view/listen as desired. That could appeal to people that may/may not want to burn their own disc for backup. I know sometimes I will burn a backup of a favored disc; sometimes not. I know: sort of wishy washy maybe, it depends how attached I get to particular music. But, the choice is mine. Sometimes seeing two in the rack, I admit, gives me a good feeling.
Go figure.

 

[quicksrt]

I have to wonder what the profit margin is for Bandcamp and such that provide downloads for Artists. I mean, if providing a download service for music were not profitable, how long could it exist? I don't know all the answers, profit margins may be slim indeed, IDK. But the fact that music CAN be paid for, downloaded conveniently to a computer, must be appealing to a broad swath of people, no? Why not extend the format range further, from flac to m4a to mp4 to mkv to iso, the latter 4 being spatial formats when available of course. All are there already except iso, which could then be burned to disc if desired, or left on the pc to view/listen as desired. That could appeal to people that may/may not want to burn their own disc for backup. I know sometimes I will burn a backup of a favored disc; sometimes not. I know: sort of wishy washy maybe, it depends how attached I get to particular music. But, the choice is mine. Sometimes seeing two in the rack, I admit, gives me a good feeling.
Go figure.

The answer to your question, or one answer to your question is that trading and piracy is still rampant. Making so easy as you suggest with ISO that can be burned to disc etc. it just giving away too much is the reason. I think that was your question. You wanted to know why giving away the farm because people might like that, is not exactly what is happening.

 

[mandrix]

The answer to your question, or one answer to your question is that trading and piracy is still rampant. Making so easy as you suggest with ISO that can be burned to disc etc. it just giving away too much is the reason. I think that was your question. You wanted to know why giving away the farm because people might like that, is not exactly what is happening.

OK. I can see that.

 

[mandrix]

OK. I can see that.

Well I did not want to know why "giving away the farm" as you say was an issue, as I did not really take it that far in my consideration, although I should have. The labels would see it that way for sure, you are very right about that! I just want an economical, no hassle, way to listen to my music in it's full format glory without having to circumvent or skirt the law. No, not flac files. I want to experience an Atmos BD without the physical disc. I know it will continue the same; buy it, rip it to the pc, play it back on the pc, stow the disc in the rack, collecting dust.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

Too many people pirate. The minute a song is released on streaming services, someone already has a copy for others to grab. You're fooling yourself if you think the majority actually pays for music, or is willing to.

The push for brickwalled, watermarked, copy-protected & lossy music is just a way of preventing the inevitable. It works just enough for profits to be made.

Bandcamp has definitely had some success with getting people to pay for untampered, lossless downloads of music, but for every purchase, there's like a hundred illegal downloads. (Not an actual statistic.)

 

[mandrix]

Could you explain more "The push for brickwalled, watermarked, copy-protected & lossy music is just a way of preventing the inevitable. It works just enough for profits to be made."
because that makes absolutely no sense to me.

I get the watermarked and copy protectected, but why brickwalled and lossy?

..and if you think I'm fooling myself, then you don't have a clue how long I've been around. lol.

 

[mandrix]

I mean, I bought Your music when your first showed up here.

 

[par4ken]

An interesting can of worms! I would like to see high quality downloads made available. We do have HDtracks for that model but recent releases are brickwalled!

I would like to see records companies entire back catalogue made available as downloads for a reasonable fee. There would be less of a need for physical medium like vinyl CD's Blu-ray SACD ect, less trading of used product. Sadly I know that would not prevent widespread piracy. A download could be transferred from person to person with no loss of quality just a loss of money for the record company and artist.

So then, that is why having/sticking with physical medium still makes some sense also. You can hold it in your hands, you might be able to copy it, but the copy is just a copy of lesser desirability and value IMHO.

Many/most people don't want to bother with physical medium. Now we are back to streaming which is not for me but might be the way for artists to get some kind of payment. Of course you could copy the stream save it and redistribute it for free so that still solves nothing.

The push for brickwalled, watermarked, copy-protected & lossy music is just a way of preventing the inevitable. It works just enough for profits to be made.

Brickwalled and lossy music is of little value to me other than to sample the music. I want high quality and I am willing to pay for it! Sadly the masses don't care about quality. I don't want, watermarked, copy-protected medium either as that restricts my fair use of the recording.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

I get the watermarked and copy protectected, but why brickwalled and lossy?

Brickwalled and lossy to make sure a pirate can't get a good quality version from streaming services! You'd be surprised by how many use this logic! Only the record labels get to have a good copy, and sometimes those who buy the good version. Ends up hurting us too, since we can't buy the good quality version most of the time because the labels never end up publishing it.