SHM-SACD (Super High Material SACD) is the ultimate Super Audio CD that utilizes the materials and technologies that were developed for the SHM-CD to further enhance the audio-resolution. What works wonders for a low resolution format such as CD should offer even greater sonic improvements in a real high resolution format such as SACD.
Some of these have appeared on SACD before, others never have. The latter are new 2010 DSD remasters from the analog tapes; for the others existing SACD masters have been reused.
Release date: 06/23/2010
- The Rolling Stones: Let It Bleed [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
- The Who: Who's Next [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
- Derek & The Dominos: Layla And Other Assorted Love Songs [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
- Eric Clapton: 461 Ocean Boulevard [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
- The Moody Blues: Every Good Boy Deserves Favour [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
- Steely Dan: Aja [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
- The Police: Synchronicity [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
- The Velvet Underground & Nico [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
- The Allman Brothers Band: At Fillmore East [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
- Marvin Gaye: What's Going On [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
- Stan Getz & Joao Gilberto: Getz / Gilberto [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
- John Coltrane And Johnny Hartman [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
- John Coltrane: A Love Supreme [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
- Ella Fitzgerald & Louis Armstrong: Ella And Louis [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
- Sarah Vaughan [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
- Brahms: Ein Deutsches Requiem - Herbert von Karajan [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
- Saint-Saens: Symphony No.3 "Organ" / Danse Macabre, etc. - Daniel Barenboim [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
- Bartok: Concerto For Orchestra / Dance Suite, etc. - Sir Georg Solti [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
- Liszt: Sonata In B Minor - Claudio Arrau (piano) [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
- J.S.Bach: Orchestral Suites No.1 & No.2 - Karl Richter [Limited Release] [SHM-SACD]
Prices will be high 4500yen in Japan. For other countries it is 4286 yen with the Japanese tax removed which equals US$ 45.41.
EXPENSIVE. And without cd layer. No Way.
ReplyDeleteToo expensive for me as well, but I actually prefer single-layer SACDs. Although it is nice to have a CD layer to make an MP3 for my iPod.
ReplyDeleteMark Levinson claims that single-layer SACDs sound better than hybrids, Sony has released some both ways but I have never owned the same recording in both types to compare them. Now the out-of-print Sony SACDs are way too expensive so I will likely never know the if they do.
I generally pay about $15 for SACDs, so I have missed the Green SACDs and will likely miss these SHM-SACDs unless some make it into the USA cheaper.
The SACD format seems to becoming, if it has not already, a specialty item. The major labels have had limited success, if any, and with sales figures for current releases so low, hybrids of current releases are dead. Hopefully, specialty labels will carry the day, perhaps even a few within the majors. Despite MP3, there are still people that appreciate quality musical reproduction. Vinyl has survived, there must be room for SACD.
ReplyDeleteThe World in general has assumed a slovenly relation to any art form and often technologies. Noise devices have been plugged permanently by Jobs and alike to most of peoples ears isolating them from the realities of their surroundings. Even the crunching and chewing of the fast food consumed on the go are deprived of any sound. The masses need new sexy gadgets. Not some SACD..
ReplyDeleteI have purchased a number of the SHM SACDs. I have AJA, Layla, Sarah Vaughan, Ella and Louis, Coltrane and Hartman, as well as Every Good Boy Deserves Favour. I am quite happy with these and I have ordered some of the next batch. Yes, the price is high but I have invested 10s of thousands on equipment and music and these titles are not avaiable anywhere else. I gladly spend $30 for MOFI SACDs whenever they come out and these titles are close to that quality and this was about 2 years worth of MOFI releases. I find many of the SHM CDs to be close to this quality but not quite there. The James Taylor and the Steve Winwood SHM CDs sound wonderful. I am very much looking forward to the SHM SACD of the Dire Straits debut and Who's Next was delayed and is due out this month. I wish SACDs were more available but the are not. The Analogue Productions SACD of Nate King Cole and Miles Davis release that just come out sound wonderful and the prices are $35. On vinyl those same releases are just as expensive as the SHM SACDs. This has been a niche market and if people do not buy them, then they will not continue making them. As for the complaint that they do not have a CD layer, why would someone who is buying a SACD every want a CD layer. I have plenty of hybrids and never use the CD layer, I guess if you want to rip them, but I only listen on my SACD player, never anywhere else, the sound is too lousy to listen elsewhere. But that is just me.
ReplyDeleteSo sad, I've been a long time fan of high end audio and music formats. Unfortunately high end is it's own worst enemy. Marketing is not their strong point, they have let the apples of the world destroy the enjoyment of well recorded music. I have two daughters that I raised listening to vinyl, I showed them the difference between analog and digital reproduction and demonstrated how good audio equipment influences sound. That was then, now they listen to their iPods with headphones and when not doing that they have it plugged in to their mini stereo system. Fifty five dollars can buy you 55 songs or one SACD.
ReplyDeleteSHM SACDs are the best thing that has happened to audiophile music for a very long time. Besides the great quality SHM SACDs show that the SACD format is alive and well. This is fantastic news for all Audiophiles. It's a shame that DVD Audio is in a coma because that is a great format too. So go ahead if you want to hear some of your favourite albums as close to the studio master tape as yet possible. SHM SACD and ordinary SACD is far superior than any CD 44.1khz recording, even 24bit and MOFI/MFSL/DCC. If you aren't hearing the difference you have cloth ears, but you will need a high end system for the SHM SACDs to really shine. They give a much greater presence and soundstage together with better tonal balance. These differences are minimal but give a greater insight for the Audiophile. Keep the SHM SACDs coming!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe next totally wrong step in the SACD marketing desaster.
ReplyDeleteInstead of featuring the Hybrid SACD format and stopping to produce the plain CD format at all, so that the SACD could finally spread all over the world, a proprietary format which can be played on SACD players only is produced again. This is done just for a handfull of freaks while the masses are kept in doubt and being doomed to stay with plain CD's forever.
As well all audiophiles still have just a handfull of titles available just for the sake of those freaks.
I guess SHM SACD will be the killing stroke for the SACD format.
Stop portable music... one of the more ultimate high fidelity experiences is not just in analog recordings of your favorite artists...it's DSD recordings (SACD), SHM, SHM-SACD (Stereo), DVD-Audio(Linear PCM), DTS...engineers knew the appreciable soundstage in such recordings...hence, the competition in formats...unfortunately, it's blown up in the faces of the music industry...marketability of sound equipment to play formats universally...competition with lower quality CD recordings, MP3 downloads, file sharing...STOP and LISTEN to the MUSIC...purchase a SHM, SHM-SCAD, DTS Recording, DVD Audio...listen to it in a living room/home theatre...appreciate the high-fidelity and the artistry of the musician...in fact, purchase any Elton John, Steely Dan, Kinks, Foreigner, Paul McCartney high definition CD and marvel at the soundstage...help promote the affordability of these recordings...demand lowers costs and promotes greater availablity of such great recordings...enhance the musical appreciation in the nuances of studio recordings...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ed Hilston, why would anyone want hybrid SACD discs? Now with Mark Levinson saying the single layer SACDs sound superior to hybrids only confirms this. I started buying SACDs,after I bought a bargain Sony SACD player at a big box store 10 years ago.Once you have the bug, it's hard to stop,I was hooked,now I have more than 100 titles. Super Audio is what CDs should have been to start with! I bought my first SHM SACD just to try 2 weeks ago...Wow! It sounds fantastic, like master tape fantastic. Now I have ordered as many of the SHM SACDs that I can afford! I don't agree with some of the titles they have chosen for release(Asia?,Whitesnake? Overproduced soulless crap in my opinion)but keep the good ones coming.How about Pink Floyd Wish you were here? that one would be great.Will we ever get the Beatles in SACD? Finally to address some of the naysayers anonymous posts,when I first heard about SACD I thought, oh no! Sony is trying to sell us a new Betamax, Minidisc dodo format. I'm here to tell you folks this is the real deal, they sound great and it's here.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct SACD hybrids are no longer needed. Sony makes three models of Car SACD players plus Bose makes an SACD/DVD-Audio car player. No portable SACD players, however KORG makes a portable DSD recorder. It is a mystery to me why there are no portable SACD players that play the SACD discs themselves as I find it easy to tell the difference between SACD and CD on headphones and many headphones including better Sennheiser models reproduce ultrasonics up to 35kHz or so.
ReplyDeleteNow that SACD has become a niche format rather than replacing CD, Single-layer SACDs make more sense. Single-layer SACDs never have TOC reading errors as transports age the way hybrids do. They sound better and they are cheaper to manufacture.
Also I think it might be easier for audiophile companies to license material to release on SACD if there is no CD layer as the high resolution version would offer no competition to the CD or the company's downloads.
Bring on the single-layer SACDs, however I would prefer pressings from Europe or the USA so the purchase price is more reasonable.
Are you sure Bose makes an SACD/DVD-Audio car player? I realize this post was made Nov 5th 2010, but I thought licensing agreements (or should I say "disagreements") prevented the development of any such players...
DeleteSorry Rick, I double checked and the Bose car player is DVD-Audio/Video, seems a little silly to me to include DVD-Audio and not SACD this late in the game when very few DVD-Audio titles are being released and most older DVD-Audio titles are long out-of-print. Universal players seem like a no-brainer and the only logical way to include DVD-Audio.
DeleteNever been a Bose fan but I would have thought there were smarter than that.
Oh well,
Teresa
These SACD sound like crap! They are not multi-channel. The remastered versions of these cds sound much better then these SHM-SACDs. Don't waste your money like I did.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I only tried the Getz / Gilberto SHM-SACD as it was loaned to me. I cannot afford to purchase any of these due to their unrealistic high prices, $50 - $75 for a short music program just does not make economic sense to me! However the Getz / Gilberto SHM-SACD easily beat the previous SACD version as well as the 180 Gram LP and was on par with the Verve 7 1/2 IPS reel to reel. I never heard the CD versions as to my ears CDs are too cold, dry and strident and not worth my time.
ReplyDeleteCurious which titles did you try?
Generally, to an everyday user, is there a difference to the ear between DVD-A and SACD (SHM or not) format?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dvd-audio.net
For orchestral music I find string tone with SACDs recorded either DSD or analog to be smoother and more enjoyable than high resolution PCM. However with other types of music PCM at 24/96 or higher it is harder to tell the difference, although to my ears SACDs do still have a sonic edge. . DVD-Audio has the advantage of extras, including videos, on screen lyrics and interviews.
ReplyDeleteTo my mind the DVD audio has got to be the stupidest format ever.You have to have a TV on to navigate the menu of the discs ?! What a bunch of B.S.! When I listen to music I like my TV off thank you very much. Also DVD audio was initially marketed as a competitor to the SACD, by businessmen who balked at having their titles and artists on a Sony invented format, in an almost deliberate attempt to confuse the buying public. Indeed that is how I even came to owning some DVD audio discs, there were, and still are, some titles and artists that are not on SACD. I read a lot of posts on this and other sites about why SACD hasn't taken off etc. Starting out with two different high resolution formats was not a good start. About those new SHM-SACDs, just got the Cream Wheels of Fire, it is fantastic sound. To the price point complainers; no one is forcing you to buy them, so shut up! They are for the Japanese market (as is plain to see when you open one up!), and anyone else hip enough to know how good they are. As an example any audiophile knows Japanese vinyl is almost always superior to domestic US or Canadian pressings. Well guess what, when we were paying $4.99 for albums in the old days, the Japanese were paying about $25.00 for their lps. Now audiophiles can't get enough of them and will pay double that and more for those records. Just wait till the SHM SACDs go out of print, you'll be seeing them on ebay for $100, not $50.! Long live SACD!
ReplyDeleteSACDs sound fantastic- especially surround sound discs. Also SACDs dont suffer from loudness war excessive dynamic range compression afflicting most modern releases.
ReplyDeleteHowever- Sonys incorporation of unbreakable encyption (so far) has ensured SACDs cannot be copied and that few people can get all titles they want. This is single handedly hindering the takeup of SACD by the general public. Sony also locked out the publics access to raw atrac data on minidisc and as a result mp3 quickly overtook it resulting in minidiscs demise. Also if sacd players ever stopped being manufactured- everyones hi res SACD libraries would become useless because the data would be unavailable (like everyones DAT tapes now no DAT recorders are around).
Hybrid SACDs sound identical to single layer SACDs if an identical SACD master is used. Therefore why not make all SACDs hybrids? Then I only have to buy one disc which will play on all my hardware: Home SACD stereo, car stereo, portable CD player, computer, mp3 player. If you love music you should be able to enjoy it everywhere, not just locked in your living room.
So there I was... surfing the web for info on SHM-SACD releases (I plan on picking up some of these), and I found this very cool thread.
ReplyDeleteMy name is Mike, and I've been into hi-res music (and content) since about 1999. I have a fair-sized library of hi-res audio titles... 2ch/multi-ch SACDs, 2ch 96/24 PCM content, 192/24 Blu-ray audio (2L label, AIX, etc)- pretty much all of the hi-res formats incl some DVD-A. I have a good handful of older (sentimental favorite) titles ported over to various hi-res formats- that of course don't sound as good as they would've if they were originally recorded in hi-res. But with these I just appreciate how much the hi-res formats bring out in some of these older titles (sometimes not all good, but some of them can sound great depending on the source material).
Hi-res audio has been a fantastic experience for me, and it's really a shame that more folks never had the chance (as some of us have) to discover just how great music can sound with some of these powerful formats (i.e. SACD, DVD-A, 192/24 BD, 96/24 PCM). Maybe if the public had a few less formats to choose from- and the labels did a better job of marketing the formats and coming up with more titles that people wanted, we'd be further along. Obviously, that (critical mass) never happened. Regardless, I will continue to 'vote with my wallet' every time I buy one of these hi-res titles.
Long-live hi-res...
Mike
P.S. For folks that have both Blu-ray and SACD decks (the higher end, the better), you might want to check out some of the 2L BD titles... some of them have both a 2ch/multi-ch 192/24 Blu-ray disc as well as a 2ch/multi-ch SACD disc- great for A-B comparisons, and some of their material is out of this world in 192/24 res on a good surround system.
My story is a sad one. As I waited for a winner to emerge between SACD and DVD-A formats many of the available titles became, well, unavailable. So now I'm reduced to bidding on ebay at significantly higher prices than their original retail price. Unless there are compelling reissues I will only purchase titles released on a hybrid dual format. That way, when this "niche" goes belly up I might still have something useful. On that note, Sony could have done more to promote this format (like keeping support for it in their PS3). They certainly dug in and showed balls with their Blu-ray format. Just imagine how many interesting and cheap titles there would have been if they hadn't bailed. And they just may have prevented the death of optical medium. Alas, releasing the same stale titles over again without a fallback format is very disappointing and not very reassuring.
ReplyDeleteJohn K.
John that is sad, chasing after out of print SACDs is a loosing battle. I purchased an SACD player as soon as the prices came down in December 2000 and a DVD-Audio player several years after. Now I own a universal player that plays both SACD and DVD-Audio. There would have been no need for a format war if only universal players were made from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteWhen Sony released Playstation 3 they should have simultaneously released all the Billboard top 100 hits including Rock, Pop, Hip-Hip and Rap music. They did not and it was a huge opportunity missed for our favorite format. It is worth noting when Playstation 3 came out SACDs were priced the same as CDs or only a few dollars more. For example the SACDs from Universal music group were retail $15.99 for single-layer and $18.99 for hybrids and online could be purchased for discounts around 20% making them as cheap as $12.99 brand new. Not too many SACDs are that cheap nowadays.
It is sad with so many great SACDs going out of print daily. Not all of us can afford the super expensive limited edition SHM-SACDs, which of course will also go out of print. I know of no answers.
Personally I have no interest in the CD layer of Hybrid SACDs, at some point in the future if they quite making machines that play SACDs and refurbished SACD players are no longer available I will have no choice but to sell the SACDs and hunt for the music on LPs or Reel to Reel tapes as I find the CD format unacceptable. CDs not only do not sound good to me but they make me uncomfortable and make me want to not listen to music at all.
Multichannel SACDs sound so much better than stereo SACDs, I rarely want to listen to any of my stereo SACDS. Why not release these in SHM- SACD breathtaking surround sound, and you would have something that I would pay $50 for. It looks as though Sony wants to kill off this format to make room for Blue Ray. Wake up Sony.
ReplyDeleteSHM-SACDs are mainly for the Japanese market and Multichannel is not popular in Japan. In addition since they are Stereo only they are uncompressed since all the disc space can be used for the stereo program. Multichannel requires the use of DST (Direct Stream Transfer) a losslessly compressed variant of DSD. Lossless compression is supposed to be bit perfect after unpacking, however many people claim that uncompressed still sounds better. So with SMH-SACD we have uncompressed, single-layer on green labels using a super-hard material, the only problem IMHO is the extremely high price.
ReplyDeleteBTW I cannot stand Multichannel, Surround Sound or Quad in any, way, shape or form, even benign ambiance in the rears, not for music and not even for movies. To my ears everything sounds better with a properly set up 2 channel stereo. However I am thrilled that many SACDs offer both Stereo and Multichannel high resolution programs so that both Multichannel lovers and Stereo lovers can enjoy high resolution music.
I just purchased my first SHM-SACD, Wheels Of Fire by Cream. Although the sound was remarkable for a 1968 release, I found the mixing was different fron the original. Vocals were left of center for example. I am not happy with the mix but the sound was so wonderful, I will try a couple more. Songs In The Key Of Life and Dire Straits. I'll let you know...McD.
ReplyDeleteWell, let me just say I have never listened to CD's or Vinyl that sounded as good as Songs In The Key Of Life - Stevie Wonder or Dire Straits - self titled debut in the SHM-SACD format. Every music lover/audiophile should hear this technoloy for themselves price be damned. If you have a favorite artist/album available in this format, you must give it a listen! McD.
ReplyDeleteTheresa, you write: "Now that SACD has become a niche format rather than replacing CD, Single-layer SACDs make more sense."
ReplyDeleteYou do not reflect "why" SACD has become a niche format? Don't you realize that the single-layer SACD has made the SACD a niche format? The only way to replace CD with SACD is the hybrid format for sure. Others being happy about the upcoming of hybrid SACDs with the chance to replace the CD in a second attempt you say there is no need for hybrid SACDs???
I am sorry, but with this position of early adopters and opinion leaders SACD is dying in its niche.
And to McD concerning SHM-SACD: "Every music lover/audiophile should hear this technoloy for themselves price be damned. If you have a favorite artist/album available in this format, you must give it a listen!"
No, I won't as there is no favorite artist/album available in this format, there is even nearly no favorite artist/album available in "plain" SACD format, thats the problem!
I have advocated hybrid SACD/CDs replace single-layer CDs for over a decade, however I no longer feel that SACD will not replace CD as we have a new equation in the mix, high resolution computer audio. Just as MP3's are replacing CDs so shall high resolution music files (88.2kHz-192kHz) which are now joined by DSD downloads, replace SACDs and DVD-Audios.
ReplyDeleteIn the long term physical formats will die, I hope there are enough of us SACD lovers to keep the hardware end of SACD alive until I die as my best sounding and favorite music is on SACD.
This is why I think single-layer SACDs make more sense now as the CD layer is now unnecessary since CD is dying and single-layer SACDs are less expensive to manufacture. In addition people such as Mark Levinson have tested single-layer versus hybrid SACD and claim single-layer SACD sounds better.
I only got into SACDs a couple of years ago. Until reading this blog I was unaware that in the past, more titles were available -- and cheaper -- than are available now. And ever since I bought my sacd player, I have been worried about the whole format going away before I could acquire a reasonable sized collection. But I have noticed recently that some of the newer Sony Blue-Ray players include an sacd capability. Is there any chance that this will help save the format??
ReplyDeleteI have read that all new Sony Blu-Ray players will include SACD capability. It is too bad Sony didn't do this with all of the DVD players in the past when 4 of the 5 major labels were releasing SACDs as at that time SACD had a good chance of replacing CD.
ReplyDeleteThe big challenge we have now is will any physical format survive in the age of downloads. Most computer downloads are MP3, however high resolution downloads of 88.2kHz or higher are growing and there are now some DSD downloads, although playing them requires burning them to DVDs which are only playable on PS3 and a few other SACD players that specify they play "DSD Discs". I believe that only Sony Vaio computers (so far) allows one to directly play DSD files from ones computer, I am sure this will change in the future.
We all know CD is dying due to downloads, SACDs big hope is that enough love physical formats to keep at least one physical format alive. Let that "one" format be SACD!
Thanks Teresa.
ReplyDeleteAlso,I don't quite get why it is that, as this blog claims, many sacd disks are out of print. If the artist has already played, and the music has been recorded and edited, etc., then all the work has been done. Why wouldn't the company want to stamp out as many disks as it could possible sell. Seems like a really poor business decision. No?
I agree! However many of the companies who have left SACD had double inventory, releasing both an SACD/CD hybrid and a CD only version and claim that the SACD/CD hybrids did not sell enough.
ReplyDeleteCompanies such as Telarc, Sony, Philips and others are still recording in DSD with many projects in multichannel and only releasing Stereo CDs and MP3s. Could it be possible they are waiting for either an SACD revival or a new high resolution multichannel format?
Theresa said: "I have advocated hybrid SACD/CDs replace single-layer CDs for over a decade..."
ReplyDeleteMy apologies, i didnt know that you promoted the hybrid format so much in the past. But even that this didnt work, it still is the only way to keep SACD alive and get it spreading. And I am really sure that any new single layer format will do the opposite.
It is mostly not known or not taken in account, that any other high resolution format cannot compete with SACD. The simple reason for that: In comparison to 16, 24, 32 Bit 88.2kHz-192kHz formats the SACD (DSD) D/A converter technology is very simple and cause that extremely cheap, allthough providing extremely high quality. Where you have to buy a complete mastering D/A converter studio equipment within your player to reach the achievable sound quality with any other high resolution format you only need a simple and cheap DSD D/A converter to gain that quality. That means, that a $500.- SACD player can compete with any high tech $5000.- CD/DVD/BluRay player or soundcard.
This gives the SACD the best qualification to be a format for the masses, as it provides best quality with cheap players. Maybe Sony as any other manufacturers dont want to abandon selling expensive CD players...
cheers
joe
A number of people have commented on the high price of SACDs. While that is true, I've come to look at them as a hobby/investment. I was able to purchase a lot of DVD-AUDIO/SACDs when they were cheap. I now have about 25 titles that go for $50 to $100+. I recently bought two SHM-SACD titles only because I could rationalize that being limited edition they would most surely go up in value. I'm also at a point where I'm going to try to buy as many MFSL as I can afford. I don't buy titles I dislike, but I will buy titles that wouldn't normally be my first choice. That way, as they go up in value I can liquidate some to help me afford the ones I really want.
ReplyDeleteCD and worst MP3 are compressed formats. SACD is uncompressed. Listening to CD or MP3 give one a sense that something is missing. However, the human brain will "adjust" to compressed music and recognizes these to be some kind of analogue music.
ReplyDeleteThat was and is why people can still enjoy MP3. Also like listening to radios whose music is limited in frequency response and highly distorted.
But SACD did not take off big as originally anticipated. SACD disk costs more and requires SACD player. Also the general public does not want or need a higher resolution music. Only audiophiles want these. Therefore a small niche market.
Today audiophiles prefer listening to the LP. Better sounds than SACD they claim. However in double blind tests, many audiophiles failed to tell the source.
The human ears are not as precise as the eyes. A picture is perceived the same by all. But sound quality is not precisely perceived at the same degree of accuracy.
You are free to disagree with me.
Mark Levinson the man sold his brand (Mark Levinson) and started Cello with a shop in NYC in 1999. He was quoted to have said in 1999 that single layer SACD sounds better than dual formats SACD & CD disk. He has good credentials as a true audiophile and there should be no doubts about his credillty. Even he was and is still right, Sony/Phillips decided that backward compatibility with CD was important to fill a market need. This was what the market wanted.
ReplyDeleteThe thinking was a dual layer SACD/CD give the customers a discretionary choice to use the SACD/CD to play in the car, at the PC desktop, PC laptop or the Mac Pro to play their dual layer SACD/CD disk. As a bonus, at about the same time, MP3 enjoys a boom in sales and people started to rip their SACD/ CD dual to their iPods which is a highly mobile player though the music is highly compressed to save valuable disk space. As a matter of fact, all computers disk drives play only CD and not SACD.
Today single SACD starts to generate some interest among Japanese audiophiles. These people are very passionate with the quality of the music they hear. But several single layer SACD was in fact introduced together with the launching of the SACD format. However suddenly this single SACD format disappeared as the record companies and the distributors wanted dual layers as these items moved faster.
Also period a SACD player like the great Sony SCD 1 costs US$5,000 and the Phillips S1000 and the Marantz SA1 also cost a bomb. Therefore it was a smart market move to have dual layer SACD/CD. People just cannot afford to pay these kind of money for a good SACD player. But audiophile way back in 1999 to 2005 were the only people who brought these machines. Cheap SACD players were none period.
Market forces decide the final outcome. But the fact was/is single layer SACD does give better sound hands down. But it is system dependent. A very high end hifi system with the best SACD players, DAC and atomic accurate digital jitters reduction clocks must be in place for a valid comparison. One cannot expect to hear mini micro dynamics in a mid hifi system.
However sound as I mentioned in my article above on Sept 14, is very subjectively perceived. X is a function UK 1, UK 2 and UK infinity. UK here is the unknown. The room acoustics, the cables, the interconnects, the spike feeds, the heavy equipment racks, power conditioners etc all play a synergetic part to the whole. Single SACD is one part of the equation. This is the macro view.
In the end, we are all very passionate about music. If really so I suggest attending concerts with the Berlin or Vienna Phiharmonics or
some well known orchestras that happen to come around your areas. Live music will definitely sounds better and you will really enjoy the sound of music with all the emotions and passions. Besides, in the end, it is cheaper.
Audiophiles are equipments gizmo lovers first and music second.
You may disagree with my views.
ps. I am a China Chinese audiophile.
The real problem with SACD is that all the discs I see are remasters of 40+ year old music.
ReplyDeleteA bunch of friends were excited that the Pixies Doolittle was released and I though to myself, that disc is 20 years old.
Where are the SACD releases by Skrillix, The Strokes, Chilli Peppers, Duffy, anything current at all?
I don't think that kids today are really looking for a copy of Meatloaf's Bat of of Hell...
Kids today aren't interested in SACDs or even inferior sounding CDs... they like their horrible sounding mp3 because they can buy individual songs for $0.99.... sound quality means nothing to them..
DeleteIMHO we lost the opportunity for SACDs to replace CD. When the first Playstation 3's came out with SACD playback every new recording in all fields including Rock, Pop, Rap and Hip-Hop should have been released as single inventory hybrid SACD/CDs and single-layer CDs discontinued. The industry did not do this and now the new Playstation's do not even play SACDs so all is lost as far as the masses are concerned. It is good to see SACD playback on many BluRay players but once again it is not backed up by affordable software the average person wants. Meaning SACD will either remain a niche format or possibly eventually die.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Teresa has made a good point that SACD is a niche format for audiophiles and not the mass market. Sony's Mr David Kawakami in 1999 knew that if SACD was not embraced by the mass market, the format would probably fade away. After a few attempts like surround SACDs that also hardly make a dent, the reality sank in.
ReplyDeleteSome also said that hifi market is a sunset industry. A pc show will typically attract a huge crowd between the age group of 20s to the 40's. A hifi show attracts a comparatively small group of mainly baby boomers. The IT industry is a big and huge player today. Every one waits anxiously for that new PAD, pc games, thinner gizmo, faster CPU, ram and video cards. It takes away a large chunk of consumers disposable income. In reality, it grows maybe at the expense of hifi and other leisure products or hobbies if you like.
Also about old recordings made 10 or 40 years ago by old microphones and dated tape recorders in new play back technology SACD medium, is also a valid point. No hifi system however great, expensive or the state of the arts can be better than the source. Why old wines in new bags ? It is cheaper. The free market is very efficient and ruthless. A couple of small volume sales do not add to the bottom line.
Telarc made some of the best SACD recordings. But if there is not much profits to be made, the market is ruthless. We cannot expect the new owners to keep selling SACDs as in the good ole days when the bottom line does not make sense.
Of course, you are free and entitled to your views.
Ziggy Stardust made in 1972 does not suffer from old tech what an amazing multi channel sacd! I can only add that it cost me a couple of hours work i will buy a spare blu ray player so i can play this till i die the Police stereo outlandous sacd cracks wonderfully here in australia we had to pay incredible amounts for sacd players blu rays and the discs themselves i love dvd audio as well and guess what 50 bucks for REM 5.1s sersis
ReplyDeleteSACD and DVD-Audio will soon be replaced by Blu-ray discs played on Universal Blu-ray players. Blu-ray players are selling well and have all but replaced DVD-players. Tom Petty and Neil Young have started releasing their albums on Blu-ray; we don't need SACD and DVD-Audio if these Blu-ray releases take advantage of their hi-rez multi-channel capabilities.
ReplyDelete