Why SACD failed

BlueFox

Don't completely agree with the iPod reason. I give the the format wars 99% of the blame.

http://audiophilereview.com/cd-dac-digital/why-super-audio-cd-failed.html

lightman1

F it.....I like my SACD collection.

[Deleted User]

I think there is more to it than the article. Youtube. Fileshare servers. the Great recession. Of course, this doesn't explain away the vinyl surge. I have little
idea what is happening there.

BlueFox

I think the format wars were the big issue. Consumers get confused as what to buy, so they get neither. However, DVD-Audio did have a big advantage since that was when people were starting to get into HT and surround sound, and even it couldn't catch on.

I guess the real reason why neither format really succeeded is that most people could care less how music sounds. Maybe that is what he means when trying to use the iPod as a reason for the lack of success.

pitdogg2

SACD was all but abandoned by Sony shortly after DVD-Audio group had decided to stop. Both groups failed to bring enough that they had promised to bring to market. Sony had a huge catalog they could used yet didn't even deliver the few they promised, example Areosmith's Rocks album. They had many more course failed to bring to market that they advertised as so. Sony them completely walked away to any SACD disc production and left to the little guy. We've actually had many good ones in the last few years. There are a few that I own on both formats and a few DVD-A' s beat out the SACD version but that all comes down how they were remastered.

I do not see how the iPod or any of those Mp3 formats could even be compared to one another other than convenience and Sony's persistence to handcuff the format due to licencing.

rpf65

Price. Cheaper is better, and free is best of all to the average consumer. You're not an average consumer if you're on this forum.

Nightfall

Title selection isn't great. Entire genres don't exist on SACD.

nooshinjohn

The rollout of cd's were botched imho in the first place. I feel the technology was launched too soon in order to recover r&d spending, and the promised drop in prices did not occur until twenty years later, if at all. After spending thousands of dollars on cd's, who wants to spend thousands more to replace them again for SACD's, and mega buck players when FLAC and other formats cost less...

Emlyn

I agree that the article saying the iPod primarily caused the format to not succeed in the mass market is overly simplistic. I would say it was not the iPod but overalll improvements in computing power and storage opening up a new market potential for distribution of easily accessible music tracks. I would say it was mainly the acceptable quality of CD audio to the mass market and the general ability of anyone with a computer to copy and distribute tracks that meant SACD and DVD-A never had a chance in the mass market. Citing the iPod is just a convenient reference people can associate with.

High resolution audio is a niche market and never was a mass market product. So, one way of looking at it was that SACD only failed to become a mass market product. The major music labels still make money from the format, it has been used as part of the recording and archiving stream for decades, but they make way more money in the mass market by reissuing "remastered" CD quality discs, downloads, and getting money from subscription streaming services.

The great thing about technology is it gives people options that can coexist at many different market levels. From that perspective SACD did not fail. Actually, it could be viewed as leading to the market for DSD and high resolution PCM downloads which, thanks to further improvements in computing power and storage, have been opened up as portable formats. Those better quality downloadable formats do cost more and thus are still not mass market products. I am fine with that.

I have between 200-300 SACDs but rarely use them. Likewise with the 60 or so DVD-A discs and a couple thousand LPs. I am glad I have them, but they are just one of many entertainment options. In most cases 16 bit audio is perfectly fine, especially since all my CDs are available to me anywhere in ripped WAV, FLAC, or MP3 format.

[Deleted User]

"I have between 200-300 SACDs but rarely use them."

Me! Me!

I bought a couple redbooks for $3 each the other day.
Boy did I feel old.

mhardy6647

lightman1 wrote: »

F it.....I like my SACD collection.

Me, too -- although it currently numbers two discs, and I don't actually have a player hooked up.

So -- it's sort of like the nuclear weapons stockpile. It's all about capabilities.

pitdogg2

mhardy6647 wrote: »

lightman1 wrote: »

F it.....I like my SACD collection.

So -- it's sort of like the nuclear weapons stockpile. It's all about capabilities.

May God help us if you break out that stock pile...lol

steveinaz

It's hard to market pure quality when everyone wants a fast fix.

gce

We all know that most of our better half's are happy just listening to mp3's. The ease and cost of Ipods kills sacd's and cd's. I don't think the main stream consumer even knows the difference between cd's and sacd's. My wife has an IPod and she can't live without it.

Even those who want better quality can now download HiRes files, that also kills sacd's and cd's.

And then there's vinyl that's also killing sacd's and cd's.

cfrizz

It was a combination of these factors.

The format wars, I refused to jump on board until they came in with a universal player that could handle both DVD-A & SACD. When my Pioneer came out I bought one. The morons still haven't learned and pulled the same crap with Blu Ray/HD-DVD. The more they pull this crap the longer it takes for the dust to settle for people to start jumping in.

Availability, I went searching for music that I liked, and the pickings were few and far between. They prioritized classical music, which is another niche market that didn't appeal to the masses including me.

Price, it was bad enough paying anywhere from $12-20.00s just to get a cd, Then to spend up to $30.00 for a DVD-A/SACD....Hell NO! I didn't make that kind of money, and the prices STILL haven't come down, and there are still very few rock/pop titles available.

Ipod, portability RULES! whether it sounds good or bad, having your music collection on a small machine that can go everywhere you go trumps all else.

Mp3s made music affordable again for the masses and you can take it with you. What's not to like. You can pick and choose the songs YOU like without having to buy a whole CD that if you are lucky will have maybe 3-5 songs that you like on it out of 10-12 songs that you spent $15-20.00 dollars on. Mind you, we all know that a CD can fit a lot more music on it then 10-12 songs.

The same situation for me applies to Blu Ray. I need a universal player that can play all of my current DVDs, DVD-As, SACDs, and CDs. I'm not about to spend more money replacing all of my current music & movie collections for MORE money!

I have told you guys over and over that the majority of people are NOT audiophiles, they just want to listen to music, watch movies on a good/decent system that won't bankrupt them, and be able to take it with them when they go out.

erniejade

rednedtugent wrote: »

"I have between 200-300 SACDs but rarely use them."

Me! Me!

Unfortunately @rednedtugent they didn't make any polka sacd for you so your gonna have to stick with the 8-track versions.

K_M

For me it is very simply why it failed.

Most average music lovers do not want to pay money for a physical disc of any kind anymore.
Audiophiles overall as a group, never came to a consensus that SACD sounded better than CD, or found it not worthwhile financially.
A small niche of people can not support a new format.

voltz

It may have failed for the masses but its still alive and kicking due to the surge of Vinyl sales.. when MoFi & Acoustic Sounds make and remaster new Vinyl they been very good about releasing new SACD's too.

On Acoustic Sounds web site they list over 1600 SACD's and they coming soon list shows more on the way from them and MoFi and Japanese imports.
http://store.acousticsounds.com/index.cfm?get=results&searchtext=Any&CategoryID=4&ResultsPerPage=100

F1nut

It hasn't failed as they still make them.

If you hold the same standard, accepted by the masses, then vinyl and Blu-Ray are failures as well.

voltz

but to me there are some SACD's worth the upgrade from the redbook.

like "Wishbone Ash - Argus " the SACD is so much better then the compressed sounding CD it was worth the price to me. but some CD's are so cheaply made and who knows what they Copied them from.

F1nut

I wouldn't call classical music niche and there are thousands of classical SACD's available, which is only fitting as those listeners tend to care about sound quality.

gce

We're not the reason that sacd's sales have declined. It's the people outside your door, walking past your house that have ear buds in listening to mp3's.

tonyb

Have to remember too the SACD players were not cheap either. You couldn't copy them or download on your computer....transfer them to your IPOD. Most want options, not narrow niche markets with copy protection so you can't share between devices.

People always want the cheapest, the industry itself always wants to make the most money it can....as well as the artists too. Those two ideals are always at odds with each other. They don't make and sell music as a charity either, which some think it should all be free.

kharp1

tonyb wrote: »

Have to remember too the SACD players were not cheap either. You couldn't copy them or download on your computer....transfer them to your IPOD. Most want options, not narrow niche markets with copy protection so you can't share between devices.

People always want the cheapest, the industry itself always wants to make the most money it can....as well as the artists too. Those two ideals are always at odds with each other. They don't make and sell music as a charity either, which some think it should all be free.

What he said. Sony is the reason it hasn't moved to the realm of "must have". When you charge more for something and limit it's use at the same time you've alienated all but the most staunch supporters.

K_M

Costs more
Limited titles
Not portable
Not able to be Copied
Need a special player
Limited retail availability
Sound difference not enough for even all audiophiles to get on board
most music can be had for free over last several years

Yes looks like a total success!

BlueFox

Tony, I forgot about the copy protection with SACDs. Sony shot themselves in the foot with that debacle. If people can't copy something then it is doomed as a success. Anyone remember the nonsense during the 90s when software firms were trying to keep their software from being copied? What a mess that was, and it never did succeed. Format wars and copy protection. SACD never had a chance to establish itself, and now there really is no advantage to it. My Lumin will seamlessly switch between PCM and DSD files and never miss a beat.

mantis

I love SACD and DVD AUDIO. I also love high rez files that are offered today.
SACD died because the general population don't care about the highest quality. They don't sit down and listen to an album and get emerged into the sound.
Generally people listen to music in the car , on head phones and in the back ground.

Even me now a days find myself less and less sitting down and enjoying a good album song or any of my high rez stuff. I listen to Sonos around the house most of the time and while I'm doing other things.
It's like I don't have time to do it anymore and when I do have time to sit down, I prefer to watch a show Movie or Play a video game on Xbox 1 Star Wars. Better yet I spend most of my free time playing guitar. I'm way back into that and love it.

This is most of the reasons I see and I have lived through the coming out and going basically away of SACD. I'm very sad to say.

tonyb

Quality music, quality time, quality consumer products in general, are all going to be niche markets because most people can't afford them. Just look at the majority of members here with just audio, we all look for the bargains, buy used gear, wait for friends and family sales from Polk.....who is actually paying retail anymore ? Even some of us who can afford retail are looking for bargains to stretch that dollar.

Fox,
If you remember, we all predicted the death of SACD because of that stupid copy protection scheme Sony used back then, lack of available titles, and expense. Technology and the computer age of downloading files of equal or better quality has made them obsolete before they ever really took hold. Some will still hold on to them though, much like cassette players. While SACD when played on a decent player still sounds darn good, the problems that plagued it back then still exist today.

The same thing is going to happen in the Blu-ray department. I see a big push to buy 4k blu-rays, 4k compatible players....and after a few years they will either come out with an 8k player or green ray player making everything prior obsolete once again. The cycle never ends, it's designed to get you to spend money more frequently by having to update all your gear every so often.

This is also partially why some of us old hats stick to quality 2 channel, you don't have that expense as you do in HT and 2 channel never becomes obsolete.

pitdogg2

tonyb wrote: »

The same thing is going to happen in the Blu-ray department. I see a big push to buy 4k blu-rays, 4k compatible players....and after a few years they will either come out with an 8k player

Tony most of the 4K movies are shot in 5K as of right now. I made a joke of it in another thread. So yes even before this ever takes hold its obsolete TODAY.

afterburnt

BlueFox wrote: »

I think the format wars were the big issue. Consumers get confused as what to buy, so they get neither. However, DVD-Audio did have a big advantage since that was when people were starting to get into HT and surround sound, and even it couldn't catch on.

I guess the real reason why neither format really succeeded is that most people could care less how music sounds. Maybe that is what he means when trying to use the iPod as a reason for the lack of success.

My theory is: pop music these days is garbage, if you like listening to Katy Perry why would you care how it sounds? In fact the worse it sounds the better it is lol.

afterburnt

SACD failed because McDonald's is number one.