Why SACD failed

jflail2

There seems to be a bit of a "one or the other" mentality here. I find value in both spinning up my favorite Tool CD at home, and having literally thousands of songs on my phone through Spotify in 320kbs.

But I listen to music in different ways. I just need pumped up metal when cutting the grass; don't really care about sound quality when I'm fighting the mower's growl anyway. A chill Saturday night on the other hand might call for my favorite Thievery Corporation CD and a glass of cold goodness. Having those Spotify tracks and some decent earbuds on hand can make any intraday delay (dr's office, pharmacy, etc) a decent one.

With bandwidth and hard drive space the way it is these days, I don't see why all "file music" hasn't gone fully lossless. I bought a 2TB HD for less than $100 and have a fast internet speed for $80 a month. We don't need compressed files anymore....

Unknown

This content has been removed.

[Deleted User]

DonnerUndBlitzen wrote: »

Lossless FLAC files are compressed. They are smaller than 16 bit WAV files and roughly twice the size of 320KPS Mp3 files. Supposedly, they retain all the musical info of the original CD, unlike Mp3, in a smaller footprint.

A bit of a side discussion, but I'm planning on ripping all my music in future in AIFF via JRiver, whilst I'll continue to rip all my music to ITunes in ALAC to fit more music on my Iphone.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

pitdogg2

Rick88 wrote: »

I wasn't aware that SACD failed.

It hasn't

F1nut

Some folks think that since SACD hasn't become the commercial success that CD's did it is a failure and by that standard it would be. However, to describe a format that has been around over a decade as a failure is naive to put it politely.

treitz3

Agreed my friend. It's not like it's an 8 track cassette that will come and go with the latest and greatest. 10 years of staying power within today's technological advances?

Tom

treitz3

Of course....then again.....I could say the same thing about vinyl.

Where are sales going for a supposed "dead" format?

Tom

[Deleted User]

Here is the Wiki definition of AIFF and ALAC..

AIFF..

"The audio data in most AIFF files is uncompressed pulse-code modulation (PCM). This type of AIFF files uses much more disk space than lossy formats like MP3—about 10 MB for one minute of stereo audio at a sample rate of 44.1 kHz and a bit depth of 16 bits."

ALAC vs FLAC..

"Both FLAC and Apple Lossless (ALAC) use "lossless" compression which means that the source audio file is compressed, but without sacrificing any of the audio information contained in the master recording. An extracted FLAC or ALAC file sounds identical to the original source (44.1 kHz, 16 bit stereo)."

kharp1

[/quote]

There's always going to be exceptions, but the high end market doesn't apply to the masses for obvious reasons. Much the same way they will always continue making Ferrari's, they market to a certain class of people. They don't need to sell them in numbers like a Ford product. The cheaper the product, the more you have to sell in numbers. Regardless, different classes of people will always have products available to them in any market. If one pays attention though, the class of people that keeps growing, of which most market to, is the lower classes.[/quote]

HEY, PAL, YA BETTER WATCHYER GOSHDARN MOUFF! I work for Ford and help build cheap crap for a living!!

[Deleted User]

Which will go first, Jazz or Folk?
Steaming is communism. I will resist it till the end.

pitdogg2

kharp1 wrote: »

HEY, PAL, YA BETTER WATCHYER GOSHDARN MOUFF! I work for Ford and help build cheap crap for a living!!

That explains alot. Your english is bad so you n's probably don't read to well no wonder my floor board brights switch ended up on the turn signal post.

tonyb

F1nut wrote: »

Some folks think that since SACD hasn't become the commercial success that CD's did it is a failure and by that standard it would be. However, to describe a format that has been around over a decade as a failure is naive to put it politely.

Actually a good point here. While I agree on the face of it, the future of it doesn't look promising. I think we will see more smaller products, versatile products. Most likely combine certain formats or improve the ones we have before creating a whole new one.

Through compatibility issues and new software, we are in a never ending cycle of constantly upgrading the front end electronics. In my view, the average Joe isn't going to do that until they absolutely have to.

Funny thing too is, I take mental notes in my travels. Going to friends houses for dinners, watching ball games, etc. Know what's consistently missing ? A stereo system, even a HT system. Some will have soundbars, and that's about the extent of it, maybe a Bluetooth speaker here or there to play music on. Not that these people can't afford systems either, they are pretty much well to do and not suffering money wise. When I inquire as to why no music system or full HT system.....I get, "that's too much money" or "it takes up too much space and looks ugly". So then it comes down to putting a level of importance on good sound, which many simply don't have. Hence why MP3's are still around I guess.

Many of us appreciate good sound, musically or in our HT systems, but many also do not. Probably more than we care to admit, because it seems these are the types most mass marketed audio products shoot for.

Just like with food, many appreciate quality over quantity, but there are tons of joints out there serving up crap and they are packed every day. To me anyway, format wars are by design to get your wallet off the couch and open up. It works too, because there is always a certain percentage of the public who wants the latest and greatest, that Kobe steak of audio. That's fine by me, if that's what floats your boat, but for me just getting to a level of good sound and enjoying the music is more important than the chase.

I actually like SACD, AND Blu-ray disc's for audio, but digital has progressed to a point that renders discs obsolete in my view. Plus the convenience factor is off the charts. It can be incorporated into existing systems with ease also and even in some circumstances allow for less electronics to clutter up the house. The day they come out with a format or solid state piece of gear that sounds like tubes, I'll crap my shorts and jump in without a second thought, 'till then, I usually sit out the format wars.

Gatecrasher

As far as SACD goes, I don't know if the format is officially "dead" but in today's world of fast-moving advances in digital technology if a "new" format doesn't take off and become universally-embraced within a few years one would tend to think it's not going to happen.

The price is the main barrier as far as marketing goes. If they were the same price as regular CDs we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. I see the price has come down a lot but is probably too late now.

Maybe that's the way SACD was always intended to be? An exclusive format that consumers have to pay a premium for? Somehow I don't see it lasting if that was the intention. You'd think it will eventually be surpassed by a newer (and less-expensive) platform developed by someone who wants to deliver to the masses from the get go.

Bodhi wrote: »

ALAC vs FLAC..

"Both FLAC and Apple Lossless (ALAC) use "lossless" compression which means that the source audio file is compressed, but without sacrificing any of the audio information contained in the master recording. An extracted FLAC or ALAC file sounds identical to the original source (44.1 kHz, 16 bit stereo)."

There's one important thing worth mentioning about these two lossless formats.

ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) is proprietary that was developed by Apple Computers to support their proprietary products: iPhone, iPad, most iPods, Mac and iTunes.

FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) was developed to be free to the public. Unlike ALAC, "FLAC stands out as the fastest and most widely supported lossless audio codec, and the only one that at once is non-proprietary, is unencumbered by patents, has an open-source reference implementation, has a well documented format and API, and has several other independent implementations."

Quality-wise the two formats are identical as far as playback. However, I personally tend to avoid proprietary software when there are equivalents out there that are free.

I don't subscribe to iTunes and MAC and will never own an iPad or an iPhone. Well I shouldn't say "never". I had an iPhone from work a while back but not anymore.

Whenever I get some music that is in ALAC format the first thing I do is to convert it to FLAC.

Screw ALAC. If it was actually better quality like SACDs are vs regular CDs then it might have a place in my music collection but there is zero advantage to supporting it.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

[Deleted User]

HDCD, now there was a format.

F1nut

DSkip wrote: »

SACD isn't going anywhere. It isn't expanding in the US meaning it's not ever going to take off here. In Asia though, they don't like the idea of hooking up a computer to a rig. Maybe that will change in the years to come, but right now, SACD is king in those markets. That alone will keep the medium afloat.

Very smart folks.

mhardy6647

Rick88 wrote: »

Man, some of you guys are long winded. I won't even read multiple paragraph posts.

Heck, and here all this time I just figured you had me on "ignore".

Nightfall

Do you think that could be the difference between a noisy PC PSU and the linear PSU or is it the hardware itself?

Nightfall

I can't wait. I love records but sometimes it would be nice to get music going without the the extra work, particularly in the morning.

pitdogg2

Nightfall wrote: »

I can't wait. I love records but sometimes it would be nice to get music going without the the extra work, particularly in the morning.

press play

afterburnt

Give the people what they want! They want Big Macs, MP3's, Adam Sandler, Bruce Springstein, and Budweiser. The People have spoken!

F1nut

Sad, but true.

machone

Nightfall wrote: »

Do you think that could be the difference between a noisy PC PSU and the linear PSU or is it the hardware itself?

My Quantum Byte fanless solid state computer came with a 12vdc wall wart. I upgraded to a DIY linear power supply with improvement and just upgraded again to a Mojo Audio Joule v5.0.
The Mojo took my system to another level.

tonyb

Gatecrasher wrote: »

As far as SACD goes, I don't know if the format is officially "dead" but in today's world of fast-moving advances in digital technology if a "new" format doesn't take off and become universally-embraced within a few years one would tend to think it's not going to happen.

The price is the main barrier as far as marketing goes. If they were the same price as regular CDs we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. I see the price has come down a lot but is probably too late now.

Maybe that's the way SACD was always intended to be? An exclusive format that consumers have to pay a premium for? Somehow I don't see it lasting if that was the intention. You'd think it will eventually be surpassed by a newer (and less-expensive) platform developed by someone who wants to deliver to the masses from the get go.

Bodhi wrote: »

ALAC vs FLAC..

"Both FLAC and Apple Lossless (ALAC) use "lossless" compression which means that the source audio file is compressed, but without sacrificing any of the audio information contained in the master recording. An extracted FLAC or ALAC file sounds identical to the original source (44.1 kHz, 16 bit stereo)."

There's one important thing worth mentioning about these two lossless formats.

ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec) is proprietary that was developed by Apple Computers to support their proprietary products: iPhone, iPad, most iPods, Mac and iTunes.

FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) was developed to be free to the public. Unlike ALAC, "FLAC stands out as the fastest and most widely supported lossless audio codec, and the only one that at once is non-proprietary, is unencumbered by patents, has an open-source reference implementation, has a well documented format and API, and has several other independent implementations."

Quality-wise the two formats are identical as far as playback. However, I personally tend to avoid proprietary software when there are equivalents out there that are free.

I don't subscribe to iTunes and MAC and will never own an iPad or an iPhone. Well I shouldn't say "never". I had an iPhone from work a while back but not anymore.

Whenever I get some music that is in ALAC format the first thing I do is to convert it to FLAC.

Screw ALAC. If it was actually better quality like SACDs are vs regular CDs then it might have a place in my music collection but there is zero advantage to supporting it.

Well, yes and no. Though Apple lossless started as a proprietary format, it kinda isn't anymore. ITunes comes on any Windows machine now, and any dac or pretty much anything with a digital connection can play it. My android phone plays it through my sonos app. So while flac is open based, Apple lossless can play on just about anything flac can these days.

BlueFox

This thread sure came back to life. One day I need to follow DK's (Ray) instructions on using my idle Oppo 103 to rip all my SACDs. I very rarely even turn on my SACD player anymore. I haven't bought an SACD in years, and for new CDs I just rip them while at work, and then load them onto the file player later.

mrloren

I own a few SACD's. I do have a Sony DVP- N3100ES DVD/SACD/CD player that I keep just for my CD/SACD enjoyment. When I a woodworking or just doing something around the house I will use DLNA, queue up a few hours of tunes and rock on.

When people are at my house and ask why I have all my "BIG" audio gear I will play something for them and most think it sounds great. I laugh at people who say "why not just get a sound bar"... errrr NO.

K_M

DSkip wrote: »

mrloren wrote: »

I own a few SACD's. I do have a Sony DVP- N3100ES DVD/SACD/CD player that I keep just for my CD/SACD enjoyment. When I a woodworking or just doing something around the house I will use DLNA, queue up a few hours of tunes and rock on.

When people are at my house and ask why I have all my "BIG" audio gear I will play something for them and most think it sounds great. I laugh at people who say "why not just get a sound bar"... errrr NO.

My favorite question for these people is, 'do you want to hear the music, or experience it?'

Most non audio minded people are not impressed with the typical audiophile sound. We have had non audio people here and they were not impressed at all.
Many expect huge booming bass, loud levels, and big huge distorted sound, when they hear someone has a nice sound system.
They think Club, Car system, or Big Bad sounding live set up.

Nuance and detail, and clarity, are hard for them to grasp.

We take them out back and fire up the big Pa Speakers, most are impressed. They like the loud boomy big sound.

BlueFox

mrloren wrote: »

I do have a Sony DVP- N3100ES DVD/SACD/CD player that I keep just for my CD/SACD enjoyment.

That DVD player is what got me back into stereo. One night back around 2005 or so I put a CD in it, and played it in the HT. I thought, 'This sounds pretty good'. Next thing I knew I was bringing the two channel out of mothballs, and then started upgrading over the next decade, and still continuing.

mrloren

BlueFox wrote: »

mrloren wrote: »

I do have a Sony DVP- N3100ES DVD/SACD/CD player that I keep just for my CD/SACD enjoyment.

That DVD player is what got me back into stereo. One night back around 2005 or so I put a CD in it, and played it in the HT. I thought, 'This sounds pretty good'. Next thing I knew I was bringing the two channel out of mothballs, and then started upgrading over the next decade, and still continuing.

I am still using mine after like 12 years. I just keeps on going and going. I picked it up when I worked at Sony for real cheap around $250 if I remember correctly. It has served me well over the years. Still plays everything I toss in it.