[James Romeyn]

This may be irrelevant, considering SACD's apparent demise.  OTOH, some may find it interesting. 

I told my industry friend that I thought on my Allison Krause live SACD (A1 music + production quality), I thought the CD layer sounded better; that once I tuned into the difference (took a few times) it wasn't subtle at all. 

I also told him my reaction to a particular recording done by a mutual acquaintance.  I said the SACD had good air but lacked body/dimensionality to the instruments, was less real sounding & more of a caricature of the real sound, w/ less definition to the edges of the instrument images & a bit phasey, w/ less definition of the space between instruments too.  I thought the CD was the inverse of the above & preferred overall.  Again, just like the Krause disc, once tuned in to the difference much preferred & not subtle.

I asked which layer he preferred on the same disc. 

My friend replied that my results didn’t surprise him.  He said Collin Cigarran, Sony's ex-head of SACD software here in the U.S., admitted to him that Sony had to "manipulate" the CD layer on hybrids to make them sound inferior to their SACD layer.  Worse yet, they used sub-standard master reels when they re-released the 22 Rolling Stones SACDs and many others.  Sony had sourced six of the so called "master reels" from eBay for the Stones project.  Strangely, another mutual acquaintance has different master tapes for the same six Stone’s recordings, and his masters are lower generation than they bought from various sellers on eBay. 
 
He said the main reason Sony failed to give our mutual acquaintance a promised Sonoma workstation (basically, their DSD digital mastering system) was because Collin was afraid our friend would not manipulate the CD layer and it would expose SACD for what it really was/is ... just another format in which Sony could control the copyrights of their releases, under the disguise of better sound quality.  (Oh, like HDMI? I ask) 
 
My friend said he has few SACD's because few impress him, while many CD's do.  He mentioned some people’s business might be hurt if this stance was made public, because it does "sound" like an improvement in some cases. 
 
He mentioned, on our mutual friend’s discs, he prefers the CD's burned off the same Alesis Masterlink that he used to do the particular hybrid disc I auditioned.  Sonopress Germany screwed up the sound quality of that recording at their facility, in his opinion.  He offered to send me a CD burn of that one for my assessment. 

He said my “phasey” reaction regarding the SACD was spot on.  He also mentioned smeared/loose focus & the tonal issues I mentioned.  He said these problems didn’t exist on the SACD master when our friend sent it to be manufactured, but it is plain as day on Sonopress's finished product.  He said Crest does an even worse job, & concluded by saying it’s no wonder SACD failed.

[JoshK]

This isn't the first time I've heard the "phasey" objection.  Can you describe what you mean by that? 

Its a chicken and egg argument, sort of, but lack of popular music on SACD killed the format IMO.  But then not many titles are going to be released on the format if the engineers and studios aren't convinced of Sony's superiority claims leading to more sales. 

[Double Ugly]

Additional comments about the demise of SACD can be found in this 3-year old thread.

I found the comments by infinity driver re: shoddy mastering particularly intersting.

-Jim

[nathanm]

I wonder how many NEW releases there were which were recorded with a DSD converter and which also never got converted to PCM somewhere along the line.  Seemed to me like most of the stuff was re-released analog stuff from years past.  Well, at least that's all I could find that I actually had a passing interest in.  Sure wish I was into classical, as there's a boatload of that. 

It's just bad timing.  The idea of marketing sound quality ended the day vinyl scratchiness went away.  Since then the only saleable point is that now you can cram tons of stuff into a tiny box.  Once the sonic improvements enter the realm of the connoisseur the general public has no interest in it.  From here the only place to go is some kind of surgically implanted music player.  You just squeeze your earlobe and get music.

Perhaps since everyone and their grandma is sold on earbuds why don't the record companies start making binarual albums?  All you can get for binaural recordings is the sound of guys walking their dogs on the beach fer crying out loud.  Record Britney Spears with a Schoeps sphere mic and cripes, even I might buy the damn thing.

[rbrb]

Yes and Mastering Engineers like Steve Hoffman and Bob Ludwig were in on the conspiracy with Sony also.  Then you get guys like Ed Meitner at EMM Labs that played a role in developing DSD.  His equipment probably makes SA-CD sound fantastic because he's included a circuit to make Redbook sound worse.

Geez already.  If I read I said/he said more than twice in a post I consider it purely gossip.

[Rob Babcock]

I feel DSD at its best is simply inferior to PCM.  SACD "failed" not because of that, though- it was a poorly marketed product that no one outside of a handful of audiophools wanted.  SACD will endure as a nice product for many years, I suspect, but the mass market stayed away in droves.

[1000a]

poorly marketed is a gross understatement my non audio friends mostly have never even heard of such.  and now its HD DVD and Blue Ray I just stay away until Blockbuster has 80%+ HD movies and better yet Netfix where they have a real selection of real films.

while I'm bitching cassettes replaced reel to reels for most even audio guys?
betamax went in the toilet.   4 channel stereo (quadraphonic) got all the way to a Pink Floyd concert but also bombed probably a good thing dead nota history museum amps and TTs.  Almost no body ever recorded audio only on to a HIFI VCR shaming cassette decks.  I'm sort of glad sacd bomded cause the greedy people in the ivory towers care not about anything but $$.  They still screw up CDs when some people make incredible sounding Cds. Whats up with all the people who care not about art and soul.

[nathanm]

I feel DSD at its best is simply inferior to PCM.  SACD "failed" not because of that, though- it was a poorly marketed product that no one outside of a handful of audiophools wanted.  SACD will endure as a nice product for many years, I suspect, but the mass market stayed away in droves.

I dunno, personally I don't have an opinion about the differences in sound quality as I've never compared the two.  But my point was that IF you're going to sell a new fangled format then it ought to be pure and not bounced back and forth.  AFAIK the only DSD recording I've got is Ray Kimber's Iso Mike disc.  But even there it's about a different acquisition techique and not just different DA converters.  Seems like when people want to demonstrate the awesomeness of a particular recording medium it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as they are then putting more effort into getting a good sound.  The effort is far more responsible for the positive results than the DA itself.

[Thelonious Monk]

I feel DSD at its best is simply inferior to PCM.  SACD "failed" not because of that, though- it was a poorly marketed product that no one outside of a handful of audiophools wanted.  SACD will endure as a nice product for many years, I suspect, but the mass market stayed away in droves.

i would like someone to back up the "dsd sucks" argument for once.

[Rob Babcock]

I feel DSD at its best is simply inferior to PCM.  SACD "failed" not because of that, though- it was a poorly marketed product that no one outside of a handful of audiophools wanted.  SACD will endure as a nice product for many years, I suspect, but the mass market stayed away in droves.

i would like someone to back up the "dsd sucks" argument for once.

I didn't say it sucks, I said it's inferior to LPCM.  But I have heard engineers "back up" the argument very convincingly.  This is a good primer on the subject.

[James Romeyn]

Yes and Mastering Engineers like Steve Hoffman and Bob Ludwig were in on the conspiracy with Sony also.  Then you get guys like Ed Meitner at EMM Labs that played a role in developing DSD.  His equipment probably makes SA-CD sound fantastic because he's included a circuit to make Redbook sound worse.

Geez already.  If I read I said/he said more than twice in a post I consider it purely gossip.

FYI
The entire communication was via email.  I put the actual original emails in their original sequence & edited it only to make sense in the past tense first person.  Every point is as it originally exists in the emails.  The only other editing point was to eliminate the other party's identities to protect their anonymity.  There's no gossip whatsover in the post but I have sum total zero interest in convincing anyone who freely chooses to believe differently. 

The anonymous parties make some of the best digital playback I've heard (I've auditioned the best available from some of the best minds in this field).  They assisted Intel in preparing an important product for marketing (many reading this use product), do engineering for MRI machines, & make fine recordings, among other audiophile interests.   

[James Romeyn]

This isn't the first time I've heard the "phasey" objection.  Can you describe what you mean by that? 

Josh
It sounds ever so slightly like there's a phase control being manipulated, just a slight but definite sensation of instabilty to the sound, like the visual effect when Star Trek characters are being re-materialized during the process of being transported.  If that's confused you sufficiently, I've done my job...just kidding, hope that helps.

Once I tuned in to the effect, it's quite obvious which layer I'm listening to, even if I'm just walking around the room listening casually.

Conversely, there is a light, airy texture, possibly even connected to the above phasey sound, that people may find attractive.  There's always been this vague sense of uneasiness I've had when listening to SACD, that produces an effect in me that has always been a great indicator that something is wrong: I don't want to listen for long.     

[James Romeyn]

I feel DSD at its best is simply inferior to PCM.  SACD "failed" not because of that, though- it was a poorly marketed product that no one outside of a handful of audiophools wanted.  SACD will endure as a nice product for many years, I suspect, but the mass market stayed away in droves.

i would like someone to back up the "dsd sucks" argument for once.

I didn't say it sucks, I said it's inferior to LPCM.  But I have heard engineers "back up" the argument very convincingly.  This is a good primer on the subject.

Great link, Josh!  Thanks, I loved it.

[Regalma]

When I first started reading about SACD and DVD-A I figured it would fail. People don't care enough about better than CD quality to spend a whole bunch of money and not be able to play them in their car or portable palyers. DVD-A was dead on delivery because of its complete lack of compatibility with CD equipment. I figured SACD with its CD layer would have some chance, but then it turned out that the manufacturers produced mostly non-hybrid SACDs. Dead on delivery. Along came MP3 players and the inability to record SACDs on to these players really put them on the fast track to nowhere.

I started to get into the SACD and DVD-A scene. I liked them. I already had a surround sound system and universal players became inexpensive. For awhile I was buying all sorts of disks. But then came my impulsive purchase of a MP3 player. That turned out to be the best thing to hit automobile music since the cassette (for those who remember 8-track you'll understand what a great thing cassettes were). So I had all these disks that I can't copy to my player. That ended my buying anything but hybrid SACDs. At that point it was hardly worth the effort. Now that I have a really good 2 channel PC based system and a so-so HT system the SACDs and DVD-As are gathering dust.

SACD and DVD-A are also excellent examples of how the implementation of DRM is going to really hurt the music industry. There are too many ways I want to listen to my music and I don't want to have to buy multiple versions of the same music. The copy protection more than anything else killed these formats for me.

[dado5]

Personally I think price killed them.

If they offered the discs at or maybe a buck or two above CDs then it may have taken off.  But launching them at $30 + a disc, amid declining sales and years of consumer complaints over the price of CDs, what the hell did they expect?

I did like some DSD recordings but none of the ones  I heard motivated me to support the format beyond the low priced Sony NSV 500.

[BobM]

Its a chicken and egg argument, sort of, but lack of popular music on SACD killed the format IMO. 

That and the plain fact that the i-pod & earbud toting, background music listening public didn't hear a difference so couldn't justify the extra cost. Us audiophiles just don't make up a big enough demographic to make any difference at all. Now put on top of that the fact that only a portion of the audiophiles actually bought SACD machines and a few disks (classical mostly I would guess) and you will have to ask yourself why Sony actually continued it for as long as they did!

Forget all the other insider arguments about badly mastered disks and "phasy" stuff. The marketplace just didn't want it. They don't want DVD-A either.

Enjoy,
Bob

[zacster]

Another reason it died is that a whole library of music, that recorded at 16/44.1 or 16/48 would NEVER be available in hi-res, in other words, the music of the last 20 or so years.  You can't take the masters and upsample them and sell it as hi-res (or maybe you could, and I wouldn't put it past them).  But that's a big hole for the general public in terms of acceptance.  The 20-40 year olds that may have bought into it were basically shut out by the selection of either classic rock or jazz, and maybe some current music.  Maybe some had analog tapes made at the same time, but knowing how cheap the record labels are, probably not.

[senad]

Yet another good idea killed by the usual incompetence and greed of the music industry. 

[cytocycle]

Same reason Beta died (copyright controls)
Sony even killed my SONY ES DAT (because they couldn't control copyrights enough, because it made too good of a recording)
Then they killed Minidisc by being too late, too small and too expensive..
Sony camera memory cards... another bomb..

SACD like someone else already said.. $30 when people wanted to pay $13? and how many Stones album remasters can you have?? Players cost too much because of licensing restrictions..
Sony didn't have enough mastering hardware so new artists couldn't afford to go SACD if they wanted to.. and lastly they only came out with SACD because their Patent royalties expired on Redbook...

Same reason for them going blueray was to get the patent royalties that Toshiba enjoyed on DVDs. Will common people pay $900 for a Blueray player.. I know sony is just trying to get everyone to buy a PS3, plus the free Blueray giveaways with every PS3 so they could stack the numbers of blueray selling more..

I really wish Toshiba would step up the marketing and kill the dual layer $30-40 HD-DVDs so they could beat Sony at BlueRay since they wasted our time with MPEG2 compression that didn't look any different than standard DVDs and audio that is the same? Finally they producing some higher quality content.

All Sony has done is make me not buy SACD's (even though I own a universal, but my manufacture (Theta) can't get the Digital SACD licensing because sony has basically shut done the SACD division, so I will never be able to enjoy SACD digitally without going through an analog out of my Universal (Total BS!!!).  And now I've bought HD-DVD and now even less of those because of the stupid dual layer version where the movie content isn't worth $30-40 because hollywood doesn't make any truly enduring movies (everything is commercial spotlights for Coke, Nike, etc..)

[Toka]

Honestly, I was never all that thrilled with SACD from the get-go. Beyond the 'buy everything again' standpoint, I didn't care for the sound quality on most of what I heard. I felt the highs, in particular, would range from ok to ear-burning. It was very 'open' sounding, because of all the upsampling (adding spaces between bits), but in the end I just felt it was artificial. The only SACD's I have are hybrids, and I think I listened to most of them once. Some sounded pretty good, but in almost all cases I had vinyl which I liked better anyway. Oh well.