SACD is the realization of an audiophile’s dream come true: all the precision of digital reproduction combined with all the warmth and ambiance of analog sound. So why are recording companies ignoring and deserting SACD? Especially when it offers the highest resolution with the most secure content protection available. And why didn't all music lovers adopt the SACD format?
Three types of listeners that adopted SACD:
- Analog lovers on their continuing quest for a trouble-free easy to use non-digital sounding format. CD was rejected because it sounded too digital, and lacked the beauty and warmth of the best analog.
- CD lovers on the quest for more realistic sound.
- Multichannel enthusiasts who are attracted primarily to the surround sound aspect of SACD.
I sold all of my LPs back in 2001 as I knew that SACD would replace CD, since SACD sounded like real honest-to-god music, I just knew that ALL audiophiles everywhere on Planet Earth would dump those gawd-awful sounding CDs, and even all of their LPs as fully enjoyable analog-like sound was here in a digital format, no less! IT WAS AND IS A MIRACLE! This was back in the 2 channel stereo SACD days, then once the multichannel option was added SACD should have been a slam-dunk. CD, LP and all other formats should be dead now, leaving SACD is the lone surviving physical format. But no, the right thing DID NOT happen and I was not only wrong, but dead wrong. And now the world's finest format is on its death bed. Sure there are new Classical releases from a few small boutique labels. Some may point to expensive reissues from Analogue Productions and MFSL but SACD is a very small sideline for them most of their reissues are on LP only! Then there are the super expensive unaffordable SACDs from Japan that cost $35 - $60 each plus shipping.
For me Telarc leaving the SACD fold over a year ago was the final nail in the coffin of SACD. Why? They record pure DSD, their SACDs retailed for $18.99 and many retailers offered hefty discounts, thus were affordable to music lovers from every economic spectrum.
Due to the limited selection (compared to LPs and analog tapes) coupled with TOC reading issues with SACD hybrids on many of the early SACD players many analog lovers (myself included) went back to the analog formats. I repurchased many of my favorite LPs and Pre-recorded 7½ IPS Reel to Reel tapes, however eventually I readopted SACD because I missed the stunningly realistic sound of Telarc's DSD recordings.
The selection improved over time and now there are over 6,000 SACDs released but too many music genre's are underrepresented or totally missing. Thus I depend on DVD-Audios and high resolution downloads to help fill in the gaps.
Sony had a excellent opportunity to make SACD the dominate format with the first release of Playstation 3 by supporting it with the software young gamers would buy. At the very least every single recording on Billboard's top 100 lists should have been released as SACD/CD hybrids the very day Playstation came it. They did not do that, so SACD will die. Sony missed out on making billions of dollars profit, and we missed out on everything being released on SACD. And with the deserters from the major labels and many large audiophile and boutique labels the only outcome I can see is the death of SACD.
See also:
I beleive you were not only wrong the first time. But you are wrong again with this article.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Sony missing out on billions of dollars of profit is laughable. Only audiophiles care about the sound quality of their music. CDs sound better than compressed MP3s, yet people have no problem sacrificing (if they even noticed) that sound quality for a much more portable format. If they're willing to accept worse sound quality than they're used to (once again, if they even noticed the difference) - why would they go out of their way to spend extra money to adopt a format that offers nothing but improved sound quality?
ReplyDeleteSecondy, Sony releasing every single on the Billboard Top 100 list is VERY unrealistic. At the time of the PS3 release, how many of the Top 100 consisted of titles released by any record label owned by Sony? What, 10 maybe? Sony can't control what other labels do - nevermind trying to convince them to do something that will only cater to a very niche market.
You really don't have a grasp of the real world and what people want.
Ordinary everyday people DO care about sound quality, even people with very little money. When I was a salesperson at The Good Guys, people would spend hours comparing the sound of Boom boxes and mini-systems. Their language may be different than audiophiles. For example they would say such things as bass that really "pops" (which in audiophile speak means deep bass with impact), highs that zing, and voices that project. Even if they only have $200 to speak regular people care a great deal about sound.
ReplyDeleteI will say flat out any music lover introduced to SACD in their own system, no matter how expensive or inexpensive will want ALL of their music on SACD and lament the fact that all of it is not.
BTW I like higher bit MP3s (192kbps or higher) as they sound more analog-like which I surmise is because they throw away that part of CDs that make CDs difficult to listen to. However as comfortable as MP3s are SACDs sound worlds better.
So yes I do have a grasp in what real people want, most of them have just not been exposed to know they want SACD!
Finally if you do not give music listeners the music they want then why would they buy your superior format? Every single release on the Billboard top 100 should have been released when Playstation 3 came out, not just by Sony but it should have been a group effort by the entire recording industry, like when CD came out.
No, people don't want SACD. Music is something they listen to in the background or while commuting, etc. They don't sit and listen to the subtle nuances that audiophile equipment and recordings provide. People had better sound quality with Vinyl, but the didn't have a problem sacrificing it for CD. The only people I hear complaining about the sound quality of CDs are essentially audiophiles. MP3 is more compressed and sounds WORSE (not better) than CD - and people downgraded happily because MP3 offers so much more portability. Going back to shiny 5" discs for improved sound quality isn't worth it to them.
ReplyDeleteI have demo'd my SACD system to about 20 people over the years. How many have SACD systems now? Other than me, none. Most thought the sound quality was nice because my system is much better than theirs - but they didn't notice the difference between CD and SACD. NONE of them cared enough to upgrade. Most bought iPods with speaker docks as their sound system. They sound like crap to me, but they love it.
Sorry, you're way off base thinking people actually cared. They voted with their wallets against Vinyl in the past and are doing it again now. SACD never had a chance with in the mass market.
As you have surmised I disagree with your premise, and I firmly believe if SACD was promoted CORRECTLY it would have totally replaced CD. When I mean correctly I mean the whole shebang, ALL modern popular music on every single label released as SACD/CD hybrids. All DVD players, all mini-sytems, all boom-boxes, all car players, and also all portables capable of playing the high resolution tracks on SACDs. The way SACD was introduced was a crime against music lovers everywhere.
ReplyDeleteHigher bit rate MP3s, even though they have less resolution are more musical, more analog-like, more comfortable, considerably more enjoyable and easier to listen to than CDs and that is the real reason MP3s are overtaking CDs in sales. Here are some of my thoughts on why this is so:
http://anti-cd.lefora.com/2010/06/09/the-last-resort/
http://anti-cd.lefora.com/2009/12/05/computer-audio-the-musically-comfortable-alternati/
I also listen to music when I am commuting and on walks with my iPod and I want the best sound possible which is even MORE important when using headphones, someday I will have a portable that can play DSD music files.
Not just audiophiles but many women complain about the uncomfortableness of CDs. Indeed I came to SACD myself because it did not sound digital, it had nothing to do with higher resolution, that was a welcomed bonus. But music HAS to be comfortable to me or I won't listen to it. CDs are a reason more women are not into audio as it hurts our ears, forget men if the majority of women could here their favorite music on SACD, and how comfortable it is, they would not only adopt SACD but actually become involved in audio in masse.
"Higher bit rate MP3s, even though they have less resolution are more musical, more analog-like, more comfortable, considerably more enjoyable and easier to listen to than CDs and that is the real reason MP3s are overtaking CDs in sales."
ReplyDeleteThis is the biggest BS I've ever read.
1. People use "mp3" for convenience - to put more music on flash memory iPods, to buy it sitting on the sofa from iTunes ("mp3" = 128-256kbps aac/mp4), to buy only hits not entire albums.
2. "mp3s" are not "more musical" compared to lossless audio, it's distortion/missing information. Get a quality DAC if you want "more musicality" from CD audio. Or stick to hi-res (DSD, PCM).
Joe it's most assuredly NOT BS! I find what MP3 throws away to be MORE important as what it keeps, it seems to throw away the objectionable quality of low resolution 44.1K PCM digital. In short MP3s sound analog-like and CDs sound digital-like even on an expensive DAC. MP3s are more musical than 44.1K lossless audio such as CD, FLAC, Apple Lossless WAV or AIFF. However REAL high resolution computer music files 88.2K, 96K, 176.4K and 192K sound the best, and have none of the problems of lossless 44.1K or CDs!
ReplyDeleteI dislike CDs, however I have grown very fond of MP3s at bit rates of 192kbps to 320kbps. MP3s are lossy compressed, throwing away the majority of the music file, and are also 44.1kHz PCM like CDs. Thus by all rights should worse than CDs, however in reality I think they sound better, considerably warmer and more comfortable to listen to, usually without CDs strident digital-edge.
The secret I believe is a combination of MP3 throwing away the irritating digital sound that infests 44.1K and the roll-off of the highest frequencies. It could be the sampling rate of 44.1kHz PCM adversely effects the upper audible frequencies making them harsh and digital-like.
An uncompressed 44.1kHz WAV or AIFF music file is 1411kbps, so a 320kbps music file must discard 1091kbps!
When I first heard MP3 it was at 64kbps and was horribly distorted, like listening to music underwater, and had lots of artifacts. 128kbps solved the underwater sound and artifacts however it was even more strident than the worst CDs, being ugly in the extreme. Then I discovered variable bit rate 192kbps MP3s, which to my shock and surprise had the warmth of analog tape, even when from a digital master. I also have 256kbps and 320kbps MP3s.
I recently transferred the CD layer of all of my hybrid SACDs to my computer so I could play them on my iPod. First I tried uncompressed WAV and AIFF but they didn't sound much better than CDs. I converted them to Apple Lossless and to my surprise they gained some warmth, but with repeated listening they were not that much better and really not suitable for anything other than background music.
So I experimented with different rates of MP3:
192kbps: this was the warmest and most comfortable.
320kbps: a little less warm than 192kbps but with considerably more detail.
I settled on 320kbps because it was the best compromise as it had most of the warmth of 192kbps, most of the detail of uncompressed WAV and AIFF but still retained analog-like sound.
The best of all is music from SACD as it is comfortable, sonically accurate and a total joy to listen to, however not everything is available on SACD and that is where MP3s shine as they offer the comfortable relaxed sound of SACDs without the strident digital sound of CDs. For less than critical listening situations where the highest resolution is not required MP3s are perfect.
Here is a review of the latest DAC I have had in my system, the Bryston BDA-1 DAC with High Resolution music.
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue49/bryston.htm
While the review was with high resolution digital sources, I also listened to some low resolution CDs and 44.1K PCM music files, both lossy and lossless.
If not for MP3s I could NOT listen to any 44.1K PCM, all that music would be lost to me.
I just don't really enjoy Redbook CD, for me it is SACD, DVD-Audio, High Resolution downloads, LPs and Reel to Reel to tapes that offer the most enjoyment.
Here is how I rate the digital music formats:
http://anti-cd.lefora.com/2010/03/16/problem-the-sound-of-strings-on-cd/
Hi Teresa, I'm a recent convert to SACD. It's brought me back to 20 years ago when I used to put on an LP and LISTEN to it. I actually get excited when I unwrap a new disc and play it. I never really had that with CDs. I bought an Oppo universal player which is not only a brilliant blu ray player, is damn fine with SACDs. Plus, because of the fairly limited range of SACDs around I'm discovering a whole new world of music. Miles Davis' Kind of Blue is riveting (played it 3 times last night!).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, you're not alone!
To remind everyone of the cliche, It's always darkest before the dawn. I actually believe that digital downloads will reign supreme for popular recordings but SACD is going to dominate for jazz and classical. Please be aware of the new Grimm Audio AD1, it is a fantastic new product. If this were combined with SHM, that would be quite incredible.
ReplyDelete