Thread: The SA-CD in 2008

Posts: 32
Page: 1 2 3 4 next

Post by threerandot July 25, 2008 (1 of 32)
I thought I would start a thread on what the future holds for SA-CD in 2008. My prediction? SA-CD will carry on the way it has. I don't see it making record-breaking sales, but at the same time, I don't see it disappearing either. I continue to buy SA-CDs every year and great labels like Pentatone and 2L continue their releases. So, for me, SA-CD is doing just fine. Any other opinions on what we might expect for the remainder of the year?

Post by pgmdir July 25, 2008 (2 of 32)
I’m more concerned for the future of classical recordings in general, and classical is the mainstay of SACD at this point. The cost of producing symphonic recordings, mastering and reproduction, and then marketing is making it very difficult for any size label when sales of 5 thousand units can be considered wildly successful.

I’m hopeful, but if it gets down to it, I’d rather have a RBCD than no CD at all.

Post by FunkyMonkey July 25, 2008 (3 of 32)
SACD will not survive beyond next year. I firmly believe this because the number of good recording companies are moving over to high-res downloads and moving away from SACD.

This, at least, is good, in that we can still buy high-res recordings, but those of us who relish good multi-channel recordings, will hope that, for example, Blu Ray can take its place until a widely accepted multi-channel hard-disk based sound format is apparent.

Post by zeus July 25, 2008 (4 of 32)
FunkyMonkey said:

SACD will not survive beyond next year

Check back in 2010. The format is coming up to its tenth birthday and one constant over this period (beside continued releases) is those, for whatever motivation, predicting its imminent demise.

Post by stvnharr July 25, 2008 (5 of 32)
FunkyMonkey said:

SACD will not survive beyond next year. I firmly believe this because the number of good recording companies are moving over to high-res downloads and moving away from SACD.

This, at least, is good, in that we can still buy high-res recordings, but those of us who relish good multi-channel recordings, will hope that, for example, Blu Ray can take its place until a widely accepted multi-channel hard-disk based sound format is apparent.

Absolute RUBBISH.
You are also WAY behind the times as this has all been predicted YEARS ago, like since the inception of sa-cd in 1999.
As Stephen has said, check back in 2010.

Post by Perigo July 25, 2008 (6 of 32)
FunkyMonkey said:

SACD will not survive beyond next year. I firmly believe this because the number of good recording companies are moving over to high-res downloads and moving away from SACD.

This, at least, is good, in that we can still buy high-res recordings, but those of us who relish good multi-channel recordings, will hope that, for example, Blu Ray can take its place until a widely accepted multi-channel hard-disk based sound format is apparent.

If it will be the future, with hi-rez recordings moving away from SACD for downloads (to listen to with...?) I never buy it.
I have enough LPs, CDs and SACDs to listen to the best ever recorded until the end of the days of... my grandchildren! :-)

Post by Daland July 25, 2008 (7 of 32)
FunkyMonkey said:

SACD will not survive beyond next year. I firmly believe this because the number of good recording companies are moving over to high-res downloads and moving away from SACD.

This, at least, is good, in that we can still buy high-res recordings, but those of us who relish good multi-channel recordings, will hope that, for example, Blu Ray can take its place until a widely accepted multi-channel hard-disk based sound format is apparent.

A company moving away from SACD is not a good record company. That is a contradiction in terms. What masquerades as "high-rez downloads" is often less than CD quality. Do you seriously believe that companies who refuse to release high-rez recordings in a physical format will do so in the form of downloads? Incidentally, you should name a few of the companies moving over to downloads.

If multi-channel is a niche market, it is naive to assume that it will be widely accepted as a hard-disk based sound format.

Post by Paul Clark July 25, 2008 (8 of 32)
I'm new to SACD and have recently spent a small fortune on aquiring SACD's. All I have to say is that if SACD ceases to exist and their isn't a superior format forthcoming then I will be a very depressed man.

Since enjoying the quality on SACD's and comparing them to RBCD and even DVD-A, I find myself no longer motivated to listen to anything except what is on SACD's. The improvement to me is simply striking. To replace SACD with anything of lesser quality will find me quiting my music consumption. An inferior product would simply not be worth listening to at any price point.

Post by Claude July 26, 2008 (9 of 32)
FunkyMonkey said:

SACD will not survive beyond next year. I firmly believe this because the number of good recording companies are moving over to high-res downloads and moving away from SACD.

This, at least, is good, in that we can still buy high-res recordings, but those of us who relish good multi-channel recordings, will hope that, for example, Blu Ray can take its place until a widely accepted multi-channel hard-disk based sound format is apparent.

You are probably writing this from a pop/jazz listener's perspective, but today the SACD market is mainly classical.

I agree that downloads are the future for music distribution, but as long as there are no hi-rez multichannel downloads (too much data to transfer), a physical format is necessary, because multichannel sound is at least as important as hi-rez.

For classical labels currently releasing SACDs, it would not make sense to switch to audio-only Blu-ray, because

- hybrid SACDs are ideal single-inventory items. A label needs to offer CD-compatible discs (CD is not dead, it's still the dominating format). With Blu-ray, a CD version would have to be released in parallel.

- audiophile classical listeners have now adapted to SACD. I will be difficult to make them switch to Blu-ray, which offers no real advantage in terms of audio quality or features. IMO, there is little overlap between these typical SACD buyers and early adopters of Blu-ray (movie fans). It may be different for pop music. There could be an interesting niche for soundtracks on Bl-ray.

Anyway, as long as there are almost no audio-only Blu-ray discs available, it's impossible to predict a future to that format.

Post by DSD July 26, 2008 (10 of 32)
Claude said:

You are probably writing this from a pop/jazz listener's perspective, but today the SACD market is mainly classical.

I agree that downloads are the future for music distribution, but as long as there are no hi-rez multichannel downloads (too much data to transfer), a physical format is necessary, because multichannel sound is at least as important as hi-rez.

For classical labels currently releasing SACDs, it would not make sense to switch to audio-only Blu-ray, because

- hybrid SACDs are ideal single-inventory items. A label needs to offer CD-compatible discs (CD is not dead, it's still the dominating format). With Blu-ray, a CD version would have to be released in parallel.

- audiophile classical listeners have now adapted to SACD. I will be difficult to make them switch to Blu-ray, which offers no real advantage in terms of audio quality or features. IMO, there is little overlap between these typical SACD buyers and early adopters of Blu-ray (movie fans). It may be different for pop music. There could be an interesting niche for soundtracks on Bl-ray.

Anyway, as long as there are almost no audio-only Blu-ray discs available, it's impossible to predict a future to that format.

Claude I agree with almost everything you said. An SACD Hybrid can be single inventory one disc for high resolution DSD and CD. The problem with Blu-ray is as good as 24 Bit 192kHz can be, and it can be quite good SACD is even better. And most Blu-ray discs will likely only be 96kHz or 48kHz not 192kHz PCM. And I know I am not the only one unwilling to take a "digital" step backwards.

High resolution downloads are available, take hours to download even with DSL and cost two to three times as much as a physical SACD. Downloads may replace CDs, but I think SACD is here to stay at least for another 10, perhaps 40 more years, minimum. They couldn't kill the LP, they only temporally killed Reel to Reel and they only "think" they killed cassette. And they will NOT KILL SACD!

Love live DSD, love live SACD!

Page: 1 2 3 4 next

Closed