The reason for the CD layer on hybrid SACD/CDs was transitory, to be used as the world moved from CD to SACD, and was to be dropped once SACD replaced CD, at which time SACD would then proceed to its next stage, dual HD DSD layers. Sony never anticipated downloading and I believe this messed up their timetable.
I truly believe SACD being associated with CD has hurt the format, and when CD dies we better switch to single-layer and dual DSD layer SACD as I believe hybrid SACD/CDs will die with CDs.
DSD layer
A single-layer SACD is a "DVD-5" with special coding and a dual-DSD layer SACD is a "DVD-9" with special coding. The important thing is that both types can be pressed at any DVD pressing plant using super cheap DVD discs. On the other hand a hybrid SACD/CD disc is a specially created disc glueing a DVD-5 and CD together, is still expensive, and only a few plants in the entire world are tooled-up to press them.
Final Phase: Dual-DSD layers
Since SACD is not going to replace CD, downloads are going to replace CDs instead, SACD has to carve out a new existence. So why don't we just jump to SACDs final phase and make it a format everyone will want. A dual DSD-layer SACD could be used to increase the playing time of both the high-resolution stereo and multichannel programs and would eliminate the now unnecessary CD layer. We already have many single-layer SACDs from Japan which despite their ultra high price are selling very well.
The high resolution stereo area holds up to 110 minutes, the multichannel area holds up to 74 minutes using 5.1 channels, with more playing time using less channels. Many 5.0 SACDs are over 80 minutes. And 3 channel recordings would take half the space of 5.1.
Thus the recently released 50-CD Mercury Living Presence box-set could have been released on 17 dual-DSD layer SACDs since 3 discs with both 2-channel stereo and 3-channel stereo could be combined on a one dual-DSD layer SACD and at considerably less manufacturing cost since dual-layer SACDs are DVD-9's which are a only a few pennies more than blank CDs. To sum up the 50-CD set offers analog converted to 16/44.1kHz in 2 channel stereo only, whereas my proposed 17-dual DSD layered SACD set would offer analog to DSD in both 2-channel and 3-channel stereo at a lower pressing cost for the whole set.
We are missing out on so many possibilities by kowtowing to people who refuse to upgrade their ancient low resolution CD equipment.
In short the sooner CD dies the better. We need desperately to divorce ourselves from the sinking CD format to ensure a bright future for SACD!
Hybrid SACD/CDs no longer make sense.
While there are a small number of companies that offer single-inventory SACDs such as BIS, Channel Classics and PentaTone, the rest of the world releases both a CD-only version and a SACD/CD hybrid for $4 to $10 more. Why two CD versions of the same music? CD users will purchase the less expensive CD-only version every time.
BIS is to be applauded for offering SACD/CD hybrids for the same cost as CDs, that is very rare and the majority of the world's record companies would never do so. Also I feel this is unfair for BIS to shoulder this considerable extra cost, instead if they offered single-layer stereo/multichannel SACDs and stereo CDs both would cost a lot less to manufacture and put them on a more level playing field with the rest of the world.
Let's ensure that SACD is the sole remaining physical format.















