The whole problem here isn't the format, it's that the format is being used as a gimmick. The few pop/rock SACDs I've heard are nothing but gimmicks; taking a multichannel/multimiked session tape and panning each channel on a 5.0 console is just hokey.

The beauty of multichannel SACD comes through on a recording that was set up to capture a great sounding space as it really sounds using a 5-channel Decca Tree, a soundfield mic, or even a double M-S system (such as the Josephson or setting up a coincident Blumlien-Omni group through a multichannel matrix.

This recording is simply astounding:


This too:



The soloist is focused in the center, you have the orchestra perfectly balanced across the front field and behind you hear the space of the hall and swell of the low frequencies.

Other great SACDs include old 3-channel RCA and Mercury recordings from the 50s and 60s which are reproduced in their original 3-mic/3-channel layout and reissues of 70s quadriphonic recordings in 4-channel.

There are currently over 4400 SACDs in print - twice as many as a year ago. This format is not going away any more than LP is. It's just largely a classical format. Only about 8% of the releases are pop/rock.

SACD is a killer format. Just don't buy stupid SACD releases.

4400 titles? How many years after introduction? I have more albums than that just by my lonesome. That's pitiful. Ridiculous. All the attention for those who want to avoid the degradation of mp3 is on vinyl. Nobody, and I mean nobody, knows what SACD is. I suppose there is still a ghost of a chance it will be survive. But name a title, any title, in the vast stock of catalog from the last century, and the chances are better it will be repressed on vinyl than made into an SACD.

I bet there are more people who regularly play 78s than who play SACDs as SACDs.

tracingerror wrote:4400 titles? How many years after introduction? I have more albums than that just by my lonesome. That's pitiful. Ridiculous. All the attention for those who want to avoid the degradation of mp3 is on vinyl. Nobody, and I mean nobody, knows what SACD is. I suppose there is still a ghost of a chance it will be survive. But name a title, any title, in the vast stock of catalog from the last century, and the chances are better it will be repressed on vinyl than made into an SACD.

I bet there are more people who regularly play 78s than who play SACDs as SACDs.

True, there isn't much more than a small niche market for SACDs. They've been out for about six years now.

I doubt that there's been more than maybe that many (4400 or so) new releases on vinyl in that many years. New vinyl is a small niche market too, and frankly I could give a shit less about having the latest hipster rock release on $30 180 gram pressings.

Just because it hasn't caught on, does not mean it's not a wothwhile format.

And let's be honest, even as a vinyl fan myself, the format has it's own limitations and shortcomings. All this "glorious LP" sound is dependent upon so many factors. Also, the "glorious sound" of vinyl is often due to its non-linearities and shortcomings as well. But, people do like the sound of phase-shift, second order harmonic distortion, etc...

I'm not commenting on quality, just on market success. I'm sure there are several thousand new releases on vinyl every year and several thousand represses of old titles--at least--are in print at a given time. Indie labels are releasing more titles on vinyl than they did ten years ago, and stuff that had gone out of print has been repressed. Want the new Iron and Wine? The new Robert Pollard? The new Shellac? Spoon? Black Dice? You name it you can get vinyl. SACD, not a one. That's even true for the new Springsteen and other stuff of that ilk. Joy Division reissues? CD and vinyl. Jesus and Mary Chain? CD/DVD? 30th anniversary Pink Floyd reissue? CD only. If Pink Floyd can't sell SACDs, who can? Yes, I guess a few microlabels in classical can, for a while, anyway.

Go in a well stocked record store and you will find a huge number of sealed vinyl reissues of everything from Sonny Sharrock to Big Star to Moby Grape. None of that stuff is on SACD.

Look at Acoustic Sounds website, probably the premier audiophile dealer, and you will see they stock many more lps that SACDs.

And then consider the millions of used records already out there in the bins and on ebay. Records which are recognizably much more different that the competition--bigger art, distinctive rituals of playback, the fetish value of being "original." They have a much more unique selling point than SACD.

The other issue is that 4400 titles does not offer enough choice to make someone get a new player unless they are a classical listener and an audiophile, and don't already have a big investment in vinyl or cd equipment. That's not a big enough market.

SACD is already dead. It's in fourth place after cd, itunes, and vinyl, even if only audiophiles are considered. It's losing support, with fewer releases, fewer players, and few titles being repressed after they sell through.

But the sound is crap. You decide!

I'd still like to hear the SACD layer through my hi fi, but that means I'd have to buy it. Therein lies the dilemma.

You can't spell SACD without sac.

this album isn't all that good anyway.

and if you wanted to hear it at it's best you'd have bought the vinyl.

asshat.