SACD - what gives?


So, I finally purchased a dvd player, which also happens to play SACD's. So, being all excited, I run over the to local Best Buy to grab some SACD,s. Much to my surprise, it seams that every SACD that they had (about 200) was a remaster of an anolog recording. I also checked amusicdirect.com and just about everything they carry ( over 700) is also remastered. So, my questions is: If SACD is such an advanced format then why is everything re-issues of older recordings? You would think that they would be issueing direct digital recordings. Now, I know why this format is not catching on. Let me put this in perspective: I spend about a thousand dollars on a SACD/DVD player so I can listen to re-issues of the complete Rolling stones catalog. No offense to Stones fans, but I aint paying for these recordings for a third time (LP, CD). Any insight or comments?
prpixel
Sony (and other labels) felt that the best way to get SACD to catch on was to initially trget the software to established audiophiles. Let's take the Stones for example. I think SACD's thinking was, "A lot of audiophiles are middle aged males. They can afford to invest in a new format like SACD. So let's give them the music they've always loved, along with the promise that they can hear that music with a level of fidelity they never could have imagined possible [My comment: at least with digital]." Hence, reissues of music that audiophiles are likely to enjoy.

The second point is, they deliberately made the Stones reissues as hybrids; that is, they contain both a CD layer and an SACD layer. As a result, tons of owners of regular CD players bought these discs, but Sony can claim them as "SACD purchases." The idea is, labels will see people buying SACDs, therefore those labels will want to *put out* new SACDs...

And then new music will be recorded using the pure DSD technique, rather than analog remasters put into the SACD format.

Whether this will come to pass is highly debatable...I was just presenting the Sony view, as I have come to understand it from the past two years of spending obscene amounts of time on AudioAsylum's "Hi Rez Highway," a page that specializes only in SACD (their DVD-Audio page is separate."
I noticed that myself! I also noticed something else I haven't been able to figure out yet - If the reason for SACD was to maximize the quality of sound reproduction isn't it something of an oxymoron to produce low quality SACD players, obviously targetted for folks who do not have high resolution systems? I'm spending my CD money on good redbook and players.
Ever since I first heard about SACD, I have thought it had promise. But, I too have observed that most SACD releases are older material. Which is one reason why I haven't jumped on the SACD boat. I figure I can get these recordings on LP (either original or reissue). This saves me the cost of a SACD player. The money saved could be used for turntable upgrades, which would be good for my entire record collection.

In a way, I'm reminded of the line that the electronics industry keeps coming up with new formats just so they can sell the same recordings over and over again.
I have to agree with all of the points being made. I probably have about a half dozen SACD's and that's it. I'm not buying recordings that i don't want to listen to, regardless of how good they are supposed to sound and / or the quality of "re-mastering". We want / need new music on these formats if you want new people to invest in the technology. Sean
>