SACD - why it failed commercially, from an insider's perspective

DarqueKnight

Danny Tse wrote: »

There is currently an interesting thread over at stevehoffman.tv on how and why SACD failed commercially, from a Sony insider's perspective.

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=199295

I do not agree that SACD is a commercial failure. My understanding of a "commercial failure" is one in which no profit was generated. I don't think, buy any means, that this applies to SACD.

SACD is a "niche" format. I mean, really, what were people expecting? That the great hoard of unwashed mass market audio consumers would embrace hi-rez with reverent thanksgiving? Most people don't have, and are not interested in acquiring, an audio playback system capable of utilizing SACD's enhanced resolution. Sony had to have known this going into it. That's probably why the majority of SACD releases are classical and jazz.

Sony learned a long time ago that the general public is not interested in high performance, high resolution audio. However, that did not, and does not, stop them from periodically engaging in "technology experiments" that push the envelope in audio performance.

Sony, and other digital playback OEM's could have crammed SACD down the public's throat simply by stopping the manufacture of Redbook-only CD players and discs.

I don't see OEM's rushing to dump their inventories of "dead format" SACD players and discs. As far as I have been able to determine, SACD players, particularly high end SACD players, are still being made and SACD discs are still being pressed and released. I don't think equipment OEM's, especially smaller high end OEM's, and record companies would still be realeasing SACD hardware and software if they had no reasonable expectation of making a reasonable return on their investments.

SACD has been around since 1999, which is fairly long lived for an experimental niche technology. Relax and enjoy the ride for as long as you can.:)

F1nut

From Audiophile Audition: November 20, 2009:

The number of new SACD releases each year has remained around the 500 mark for some years, putting a lie to the observations one sees around the internet and in print publications that "SACD is dead." The Australian SACD-cataloging site sa-cd net isn't able to list every single SACD release around the world, but their totals show 557 SACDs for 2006, 545 for 2007, 462 for 2008 and they expect a total of over 600 new releases for 2009. While Naxos has now joined with 2L and AIX in releasing a limited number of pure~audio Blu~Ray discs, that special format hasn't attracted other labels and a number of European labels have issued their first SACDs in the last few years. Plus several discerning performing artists have issued their first SACDs on their own labels. Considering that SONY has shamefully backed out of any SACD support, the major label bean~counters have given up on the format, and while the world is still in a serious economic crunch, Super Audio has remained alive and well. Buy more SACDs and keep it going!

F1nut

Here's a chance for SACD fans to express themselves with a vote.

http://cgi.stereophile.com/cgi-bin/displayvote.cgi

hearingimpared

Guess where my vote went.

TroyD

MP: Every time we see new technologies develop, everybody wonders if this is going to be the next greatest thing. And there are three or four questions that I always ask about these technologies. First of all, is it more convenient? Convenience is a huge motivator for a lot of people to adopt new technology. Second, is there an economic benefit -- does the technology lower the cost of partaking in that activity in some way? Third, is it higher in performance? People tend to like better performance if it’s easy for them. Fourth, does it improve access to the entertainment? Typically, you have to have a "yes" answer to at least three of these questions for a successful technology in a marketplace. This is interesting because it means that if it’s simply improving performance and the answer is "no" to the other questions, it’s not going to happen

This is what Matt Polk said regarding how he evaluates new technology about ten years ago...in regards to SACD....it's really a push on 1,2 and 4...I interpret that as a mass market medium, why would people really support it. One, the majority just doesn't care. CD's are fine, so they certainly aren't going to just re-buy an entire collection....too much for one post but as a niche market, like vinyl, it will continue on just fine.

I mean, do I really give a **** if the latest Jessica Simpson album is in hi resolution??

BDT

treitz3

TroyD wrote: »

I mean, do I really give a **** if the latest Jessica Simpson album is in hi resolution??

Hehe.....I would hope not.

janmike

If you like what you hear - buy it!
BTW - SACD was my vote.

DarqueKnight

F1nut wrote: »

From Audiophile Audition: November 20, 2009:..Considering that SONY has shamefully backed out of any SACD support...

What are they basing this on? Sony's decision to stop marketing SACD's in North America?

Sony is still licensing SACD drive technology to OEM's.
Sony is still releasing SACD's in Europe and Japan.
Sony still has current model mid-fi and high end SACD players in their equipment lineup.

I don't see where Sony has abandoned SACD.

Danny Tse

F1nut wrote: »

From Audiophile Audition: November 20, 2009:

Unfortunately, Audiophile Audition got its numbers wrong. The titles added to sa-cd.net, on a yearly basis, has been deceasing. As of the end of October, 2009, the following numbers stand....

New SACD releases (through October of respective year)

2006....620
2007....610
2008....522
2009....462

If you're a member of sa-cd.net, you can access the monthly new title additions at this link....

http://www.sa-cd.net/additions.php

For 2009, the number of new titles at sa-cd.net can still go past 550....which is not bad at all considering the folowing factors....

1. The current state of the worldwide economy
2. As a niche format in its 10th year, 550 new titles in a year is not bad
3. The departure of big SACD supporting labels like Telarc

F1nut

Thanks Danny, I know I can count on you to have the correct facts when it comes to all things SACD.

cheddar

Interesting thread. Seems the more things change, the more they remain the same. From what I understand, blu-ray is a fully capable high-rez audio format right now with no changes needed. Its capacity is at least as good as DVD-A was for 2 channel pcm except it can produce the high sample rate audio on all the surround channels too. The only difference is that all that bandwidth is being used for movie sound tracks and concert videos right now that may not have been recorded and mastered at the higher qualities that audiophiles demand. Movie tracks certainly don't test the maximum specs of the format.

Companies like 2L experimented with releasing audio only blu-rays recorded and mastered at the highest quality. And it was classical music for the most part just like a lot of SACDs are. But the few recordings I listened to were stellar and I prefered them to the included SACD versions in the same package (although my player converts SACD to PCM, so I'm sure I wasn't listening to the best quality the format has to offer). And now these offerings by 2L are getting harder to find on Amazon. I used to think that companies were just waiting to release catalogs already recorded and available on SACD until blu-ray gained more market penetration. But maybe this segment of the market will always be a niche. And it will be alive and kicking on SACD for as long as it lasts or transitions to another format like blu-ray, but may never reach the masses as others on here have suggested.

F1nut

And the winner is SACD!

Vinyl: 22%
CD: 17%
SACD: 28%
DVD-Audio: 5%
Download (specify format): 21%
Web Radio: 0%
Radio (FM, HD, XM, etc): 0%
Tape (specify format): 0%
Other: 3%