Another sign SACD is dying

Pbb how could you say that about Mario's??? That's some of the best Italian food I've never had!!!

Nrchy this is an argument that has went on since SACD was comparitively new.
Myself and Rsbeck crossed swords many times on it but I do respect his stance on it even if I believe he's been wrong about some of his predictions sadly I'm going to repeat part of my argument again.

Some of us tried SACD at a certain level and bailed out for logical reasons-we were not people who wanted to be disappointed by it.
I think the people you should blame are those who didn't develop the format not us who tried it.

To add to the argument today Dylan released his two new remasters (Bob Dylan/The Times They Are A Changin')and neither were SACD hybrids.
His previous 15 album mega release of remasters saw them on SACD hybrid.
He and Sony have bailed out on the format this time around.
I may be wrong but I believe Dylan's 15 album SACD release was THE major remastering series done on SACD.
It didn't work but more crucially Sony didn't stick with it-about a year later they all came out on plain vanilla Redbook.

The format will survive as I always said as a niche Audiophile format-specialised releases and music that will "safely" appeal to audiophiles.

I'm sorry but I listen to music not formats and certainly not music picked by some numbskulls who think they know what I want remastered and on what format-you say Redbook is a dismal failure and here is me buying countless music on that format every month and I am deluded enough to think that some it even sounds great.

I guess I should have waited on the SACD releases rather than enjoying countless recordings this year.
:-)

This doesn't surprise me. Of my local social and professional circles (no audiophiles), I'm the only one that even knows what SACD is, much less DVD-A or the likes.

Ben Campbell I'm not going to argue with you, at least I don't think I'm going to argue...

Listening to music is the ultimate goal of all music lovers and audiophiles. We all want it to sound good, or if possible better. Lots of people have said that with SACD the margin of improvement is not great enough to justify the expenditure. My response is that redbook CD in 1985 was a poor format. It has been improved upon by nearly everyone who makes any gear at all. SACD was much better sounding than redbook. If people could improve redbook that much in the last twenty years, you know they can do the same with SACD. Many companies already have. Classe, Reimyo (sp), and Meitner have made some very good units. This technology, if not left for dead would trickle down where Joe Sixpack could afford it soon enough.

My Sony SCD 777es sounds very good in SACD, but it is nowhere near SOTA anymore. The state-of-the-art has left it behind. BUT it's all dollars and sense. If audiophiles won't spend their dollars, it doesn't make sense for Sony/Classe/Meitner to invest in much better sound and formats or playback units.

I have the Dylan set, nearly all of them, and there are none of them that suck. They might not be as good as the best recordings available, but I bought them to support better formats and because I'm a Dylan psycho! I love his stuff!

What will happen when some designer puts together something truly amazing (format wise) but they never build it because they don't think buyers will go for it based on the failure of SACD? What is Sony's motivation to develop better sounding musical formats? What we have today is not the pinnacle of what the human mind can conceive. I want something better, if that means following the red herring of SACD, I'm not sorry I spent the money...

"Only companies as big as Sony and their ilk can design and produce a gamble like SACD or DVD-A."

SACD was never meant to be a long term consumer product, they have not gambled anything as DSD technology will be used for its original purpose, archiving. This is very much like Beta versus VHS. Everyone thinks Sony took a beating but infact they preserved their margins by selling BETA products to the pro-side (TV Stations) for three decades with much less competition. Plus they stole BETA from Ampex so they didn't even have to do R&D. Sony is a four letter word for a reason, buy their formats at your own risk.

From the very first day I attended the East Coast Debut of Sony SACD I knew it was a stop gap till DVD could get itself organized...ie High Resolution Audio DVD-A. It was was a way for Sony to make money on people. I have never seen an indication that SACD was here to stay except as a Consumer Product by overly optimistic small specialized producers of audiophile recordings. I think Sony may very well be shocked at how long DVD-A has dragged out this process and the ratification of a true HD Audio HDMI interface. HDMI now cannot pass 24/96 multi-channel

DVD-A is no gamble either, it is in committee, it takes a while to divide up the pie. Oh lets not forget the real obstacle to this progress. Copy protection.

PS: hope I'm not repeating what somebody already said.