Why did SACD (and DVD Audio) Fail?

[sahmen]

"Why Super Audio CD failed" is an autopsy report... errr an article published by Audiophilereview.com.  Any thoughts you would like to share about this requiem for music on discs in general?

[drtrey3]

I think the article fails to mention that most record business types are not interested in better sound as it does not test well in consumer surveys. I recall that RCA Nashville had an opportunity to switch up to chrome tapes back in the cassette era and passed for that very reason. Heck, Sony made the SACD, and has done just about everything they could to kill it.

Certainly the format war did not help at all though.

Trey

[jmilton]

I can't imagine a recording engineer saying, "Let's record this without concern for quality. After all, we are going to compress the crap out of it and market it as an MP3 anyway." Most engineers record their work in the highest resolution they can. The commercial releases get trashed for marketabilty, but the initial recordings are usually very good (thus the re-releases of the master tapes from "the vault").

And couldn't you make an argument that CD is dying? Music sales for any shiny disc format have been down trending for some time, likely due to streaming. SACD is not quite dead, but it is a niche for classical and Jazz fans (like myself).

Viva that niche!

[wilburthegoose]

Consumers only care about portability today. Sound quality is not a top priority.

[cawgijoe]

I still love playing CD's as well as SACD's. Streaming has definitely contributed to the downtrend of disc sales mainly due to convenience. So easy to just download. No real physical space requirements.

I don't think SACD was marketed well and I'm sure cost played a big factor.

[405x5]

The answer is not at all complicated........

It's all about the listener/consumer and I always divide them into three groups:(and the order is also the sales order)

#1: The Average Listening "Joe"

Just wants to hear the music and doesn't care (or know) about formats or whether it comes from AM/FM radio, CD, SACD, DVD-A Lossy or Lossless or ANYTHING ELSE. The station (like my wife) could be so distant or so badly tuned in (or out depending on how you look at it) that more fuzz than music is heard, but as long as SOMETHING comes thru to tap the feet.....THAT'S GREAT!

#2: Has to be the latest and greatest (even if I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground.)

That's the guy who must have the newest, whether it's understood or not.
The latest HDMI equipment with all the equipment AND THE SPEAKERS, EVEN ATMOS OVERHEADS, all neatly lined up in a row right in front, on the floor. (or stuffed in a corner to save space)......That's GREAT!

#3: Audio enthusiasts who "get it" and are always looking for the best sound by combining recordings that are known to be superior and played back on a system that incorporates all that is known to be meaningful and useful in audio based on solid audio engineering principal.

#1 Generates the lions share of sales and that means the cheapest copies of whatever, leaving special formats falling by the wayside.

Bill

[hemster]

Jan 5, 2017 10:44:22 GMT -5 wilburthegoose said:

Consumers only care about portability today. Sound quality is not a top priority.

Sigh... this has been true since the advent of the iPod. Possibly the Sony Walkman before that. 

[cawgijoe]

Jan 5, 2017 10:48:18 GMT -5 hemster said:

Jan 5, 2017 10:44:22 GMT -5 wilburthegoose said:

Consumers only care about portability today. Sound quality is not a top priority.

Sigh... this has been true since the advent of the iPod. Possibly the Sony Walkman before that. 

We do have the hi-res portable options now, but unless you are an audiophile, you probably don't care.

[hemster]

Jan 5, 2017 10:52:17 GMT -5 cawgijoe said:

Jan 5, 2017 10:48:18 GMT -5 hemster said:

Sigh... this has been true since the advent of the iPod. Possibly the Sony Walkman before that. 

We do have the hi-res portable options now, but unless you are an audiophile, you probably don't care.

Right, the vast majority of consumers aren't audiophiles and don't want to spend for hi-res quality I would think. 

[jmilton]

...and that's why the "vast majority" are not on this forum.

[garbulky]

Well that wasn't the reason for me when I heard about it.

The reason was .... I needed to buy an entirely new player just to hear it. What was the point? For instance my DVD player and PC dvd player played CD's. If I wanted to play anything other than CD's I downloaded it. My blu ray plays DVD's. Asking one to shell out mucho money for a box for one thing was silly.

Then you have the price of the audio. You can find CD's for dirt cheap or lots of time free at your library. Online downloads are cheap. Why would I want to spend the money when I can get it way cheaper or free and the sound was perfectly acceptable?

That was then. Now I have a good DAC. Why would I spend money on a box that plays it and pay money for the DAC in it (which doesn't play any of my computer files). Is it as good as my current DAC? I don't know. Don't care to find out. Do I want to spend time switching cables? Heck no. Can I use my DAC with it....no. Security? They can keep their security. I'll keep my gear that works with everything I own thanks.

People that listen to music mostly care about two channels. People that watch movies would like surround sound.
SACD is music ....and it's surround sound. There is the disconnect for me. Why would I want to buy a new box, new discs, new speakers, new amps just to hear something I have to pay more for? There's nothing thrilling for me hearing music in 5.1.
It was too confusing, too pricey, I'd never heard it, I never saw the discs being sold in a physical location, hadn't seen a whole bunch of discs I wanted to buy online. So what was the point?

Also as far as regular folk. When I first heard about CD's I wasn't that interested in sound quality. People said the quality was better. But you know what? The format itself pales to the quality of the gear that plays it. At the time I was hearing that almost all gear and formats sounded the same. That's because most people listen on terrible speakers and very wimpy amps or earbuds.
How the heck is a format going to make a difference there?

Sometimes it got louder without distorting. Sometimes there was actual treble! That was it. I didn't hear a soundstage etc. So why would regular folk want something that claims better sound when they know the stuff they have hasn't really sounded that different anyway?

What they are interested in is something different or something convenient.

Surround sound for movies: Sure! I heard it in theaters. I can visualize...it. Audio effects in the car chase scene coming from behind me? That sounds cool. Hey I can buy a surround system for $150 at walmart!

Surround sound for music: Eh what? I want to hear a trumpet behind me? That's weird man. Wait it'll cost me a $700 for the player? Huh?

CD's - it's so small! I don't have to rewind. I can buy it at stores, rent it at libraries. I can play it on my computer, my portable cd player, my home cd player, my dvd player, my cousin's got a cd player. You get the idea.
Tape - it's so small! It's portable. I can record to it.
ipod's, mp3's: This plays on my computer! I can take it around on my flash drive. I can download it for next to nothing. Oh it plays on my motorola! Oh it plays on my iphone! Oooh I can buy songs on my iphone! Wait it is now playing wirelessly on my car!
You get the idea ....what does SACD offer?
It's not portable, universal, cheap, simple, nor offer a killer app. It also doesn't guarantee an increase in sound quality unless you've already spent a ton of money on good speakers and so forth.

[kauai82]

Jan 5, 2017 10:52:17 GMT -5 cawgijoe said:

Jan 5, 2017 10:48:18 GMT -5 hemster said:

Sigh... this has been true since the advent of the iPod. Possibly the Sony Walkman before that. 

We do have the hi-res portable options now, but unless you are an audiophile, you probably don't care.

Have to agree.  My Brother-in-Law's who have a large music library have no interest when I show how much better their music can sound on my Fiio X5 DAP. They think it is not worth the money to upgrade. One Brother-in-law did go for DVD-Audio a few years ago when it was introduced and got burned so he does not want to try anything new. Sticks with MP3's, but at least in a higher bit rate than before.  I am currently listening to my SACD disc of Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 6 from Reference Recordings made in 2016 and enjoying it greatly. Own about 25 SACD's and plan on getting a few more in the coming months.

Another problem with why SACD did not catch on is that there was a problem with having to have so many speakers and the cable and wires that you need to get a 5.1 sound experience. Wife's and significant others hated all the extra wires involved in setting up a home theater sound system.  That slowed down the sales of both home theater and SACD for a period of time.  At least there is a small market for SACD and Blu-Ray audio discs now, but sure wish they weren't so expensive. Matt 

[ÈlTwo]

Jan 5, 2017 10:59:30 GMT -5 jmilton said:

...and that's why the "vast majority" are not on this forum.

I'm proud to be part of the "half vast majority."






^{(some of you are going to have to say that out loud).}

[vneal]

Sony is great at new technology but not so great at licensing that technology to its competitors. Hence the early demise of the Betamax format which was better than VCR on audio. Enter the SACD-same story different decade. Not a Sony hater just factual. The masses today can download their MP3 files and most are happy. Most have never heard of HD Res files which also may die an early death. For the SACD it really does not matter in that CDs are on the way out. The next trend will be better HD streaming

[mountain]

And the fact that I like multichannel sacd, DVD-Audio, and bluray audio hi Rez discs!

[yves]

Jan 5, 2017 11:13:24 GMT -5 garbulky said:

....what does SACD offer.

It offers the digital distortion inherent of DSD64. Sony killed the SACD within only months after Stanley P. Lipshitz and John Vanderkooy had presented evidence [that hasn't been refuted to date] of this digital distortion. In fact this evidence is blatant enough to not bother with anything DSD except that DSD recordings are out there so it makes sense to want to play them back in the highest possible quality. But nowadays it is utterly ridiculous to support the proliferation of DSD recording technology. As for what killed DVD-A, it was mostly bad timing because people didn't want to invest in yet another player to play the discs, but also because people had only just learned from past mistakes regarding the authenticity of quality improvements (fake improvements having been marketed by the majority of big record labels), and also around that era there was additional confusion going on among consumers due to other formats like HD-CD, DCC, and MiniDisc. That and the extremely aggressive mass marketing associated with standard Redbook CD... and to the point of artificially keeping the prices way up high for commercial Redbook CD, just for the sake of corporate greed in the absolute purest form that one could ever hope to imagine.

[KeithL]

I'm sorry, but I think that article was somewhat biased... and missed a few significant things.

1) The article seems to be suggesting that "the iPod killed SACD". The fact is that SACD was never a major success, while CDs continued to be very popular long after SACD was effectively a dead technology. Downloadable and streaming music is killing ALL types of discs, but you can't blame it for killing something that was barely alive to begin with. (SACD was never popular, and simply faded away peacefully...). Just like vinyl, a small group of hardcore fans are attempting to revive SACD, and have sort of done so in the form of DSD file downloads, but it might be fair to say that file downloads have put the last nail in the lid of the coffin on plastic SACD discs. (However it didn't put them in the coffin.)

2) The author seems to be quite enamored of SACD. The reality, as I remember it, was that SOME professionals thought SACD sounded wonderful - but many were far less impressed. The situation was far from "all the pros agreed that SACDs were clearly superior". Likewise, SOME audiophiles thought SACDs sounded noticeably superior, while many found the differences less compelling. However, the reality is that even most audiophiles were NOT sufficiently impressed to buy them. The fact was that some SACDs sounded very good, but so did some CDs.

3) Another point is that the DSD format is VERY difficult to edit; to the point where, until recently, a DSD file COULD NOT be edited unless you converted it to some other format first, then converted it back again afterwards. This was one reason why many editing pros DISLIKED the format - especially those who favored multi-track mixing and the various digital effects which are so common on modern pop albums.. And, because it virtually ensured that most SACDs would be the equivalent of "direct-to-disc" recordings, it also helped ensure that at least some SACDs would sound good (if you can't edit your recording at all, then you can't over-edit it). Note that this is NOT a benefit of the SACD format... since it's perfectly possible to manufacture "direct-to-disc" CDs, or just CDs with minimal editing, if you want to.)

4) The vastly different editing and mastering requirements ensure that the "SACD version" of a given album will be mastered differently than the CD version. Furthermore, because it will be viewed as "the audiophile version", it may be deliberately mastered to sound different even beyond that.

5) EARLY CD recordings were subject to many limitations, including limitations on the quality of the A/D converters available, and limitations on the capabilities of early editing software. As a result, the sound quality of many early CDs was poor for reasons OTHER THAN limitations in the CD format itself. Combining this factor with the previous one, even if the SACD version of a given album sounds better than the CD version, there is serious doubt that it's better BECAUSE it's in SACD format, rather than for any of several other reasons. Just because some early CDs sounded bad, and many early SACDs sounded good,  you can't infer that the SACD FORMAT is superior.

6) The Red Book CD format itself does use a relatively low sample rate. Whether it's audible or not, the digital audio on a SACD is technically superior to the audio on a CD. (A SACD is more equivalent to 24/88k PCM audio than to the 16/44k PCM on a CD.) However, this suggests that, while the SACD format may in fact be technically superior to the audio quality of a commercial CD - it is NOT technically superior to the audio quality of a 24/96k PCM file download. (In other words, even if an SACD were to sound audibly better than a CD, that would NOT suggest that DSD is better than PCM in the general sense.)

7) And, finally, the 900 pound gorilla - that sat on SACD's chest and killed it... was COPY PROTECTION. Physical SACD discs have very powerful copy protection, which includes a special physical format on the disc. This has some very nasty and annoying side effects. You can only play SACD discs on special player hardware. This means that you can only play them on "SACD players". In the beginning there were only a few players that could play them - and they were expensive. Later a few "universal players" appeared, but there was always a premium for being able to play SACDs. And you can't play them on computers - because they won't play on computer disc drives. And you can't copy them. And you can't play them through your favorite stereo DAC (you can only play the audio through HDMI - which almost no DACs accept). In short, between the limitations and the extra costs, they were simply TOO MUCH TROUBLE TO PLAY. If they really had been believed to sound better by a large enough segment of the market, then they could have surmounted this obstacle... but they weren't and didn't. However, even among audiophiles willing to spend a lot of money on equipment, only a minority really believe that SACDs are superior.

8) Note that a lot of this has now been altered by the availability of DSD file downloads.... which presumably have all of the advantages of physical SACDs - with only about half of the drawbacks.

[yves]

...And the unrefutable evidence I am referring to here is in AES Convention Paper 5620. It is just as clear as a bell.

[Loop 7]

A lot of the top tier symphony orchestras in-house labels still produce hybrid SACDs today as do classical labels like BIS, Channel Classics and Chandos but I wonder if the physical sales come remotely close to the download sales? All these labels combined comprise a microscopic percentage of the overall global music market.

Physical optical disc technology was the logical route for digital music's initial delivery but I think it will eventually be seen as a blip in history.

[Deleted]

Jan 5, 2017 11:13:24 GMT -5 garbulky said:

Well that wasn't the reason for me when I heard about it.

The reason was .... I needed to buy an entirely new player just to hear it. What was the point? For instance my DVD player and PC dvd player played CD's. If I wanted to play anything other than CD's I downloaded it. My blu ray plays DVD's. Asking one to shell out mucho money for a box for one thing was silly.

Then you have the price of the audio. You can find CD's for dirt cheap or lots of time free at your library. Online downloads are cheap. Why would I want to spend the money when I can get it way cheaper or free and the sound was perfectly acceptable?

That was then. Now I have a good DAC. Why would I spend money on a box that plays it and pay money for the DAC in it (which doesn't play any of my computer files). Is it as good as my current DAC? I don't know. Don't care to find out. Do I want to spend time switching cables? Heck no. Can I use my DAC with it....no. Security? They can keep their security. I'll keep my gear that works with everything I own thanks.

People that listen to music mostly care about two channels. People that watch movies would like surround sound.
SACD is music ....and it's surround sound. There is the disconnect for me. Why would I want to buy a new box, new discs, new speakers, new amps just to hear something I have to pay more for? There's nothing thrilling for me hearing music in 5.1.
It was too confusing, too pricey, I'd never heard it, I never saw the discs being sold in a physical location, hadn't seen a whole bunch of discs I wanted to buy online. So what was the point?

Also as far as regular folk. When I first heard about CD's I wasn't that interested in sound quality. People said the quality was better. But you know what? The format itself pales to the quality of the gear that plays it. At the time I was hearing that almost all gear and formats sounded the same. That's because most people listen on terrible speakers and very wimpy amps or earbuds.
How the heck is a format going to make a difference there?

Sometimes it got louder without distorting. Sometimes there was actual treble! That was it. I didn't hear a soundstage etc. So why would regular folk want something that claims better sound when they know the stuff they have hasn't really sounded that different anyway?

What they are interested in is something different or something convenient.

Surround sound for movies: Sure! I heard it in theaters. I can visualize...it. Audio effects in the car chase scene coming from behind me? That sounds cool. Hey I can buy a surround system for $150 at walmart!

Surround sound for music: Eh what? I want to hear a trumpet behind me? That's weird man. Wait it'll cost me a $700 for the player? Huh?

CD's - it's so small! I don't have to rewind. I can buy it at stores, rent it at libraries. I can play it on my computer, my portable cd player, my home cd player, my dvd player, my cousin's got a cd player. You get the idea.
Tape - it's so small! It's portable. I can record to it.
ipod's, mp3's: This plays on my computer! I can take it around on my flash drive. I can download it for next to nothing. Oh it plays on my motorola! Oh it plays on my iphone! Oooh I can buy songs on my iphone! Wait it is now playing wirelessly on my car!
You get the idea ....what does SACD offer?
It's not portable, universal, cheap, simple, nor offer a killer app. It also doesn't guarantee an increase in sound quality unless you've already spent a ton of money on good speakers and so forth.

Surround sound for music: Eh what? I want to hear a trumpet behind me?

There's nothing thrilling for me hearing music in 5.1.

Apparently the Lounge Lizard who wrote this post has never heard music in a jazz club, arena, concert hall, bar, theater, outdoor amphitheater, sports arena, church, etc.  Otherwise he would know (along with the direct music from the front musicians and singers) one hears music reflected off the ceiling, floor, walls (front side and rear), plus the sound of the audience in live performances as well as many natural sounds in an outside performance.   Might be that trumpet I hear to my side or the rear is not the direct tone from the trumpet but a naturally reflected sound.  Yes there are some performances with direct instruments purposely in all channels (might be cute but not my cup of tea unless that was the original performance like a flash mob, etc.).  Also in 2 channel playback in your room some of the sound does in fact reflect off your own ceilings and walls but this is no substitute for a well recorded surround playback.  

This is the same person who hears amazingly subtle differences and some that are not that subtle (in his post) but can't tell the improvement from a well recorded 5 channel SACD, DVD-Audio or BluRay (even played back in Dolby Pro Logic II surround) music performance over the same performance recorded in 2 channel sound?  WOW!  I have done many of my own comparisons with my own 2 channel/5.1 channel system switching with a 2 channel recording back and forth from 2 channel direct to Dolby Pro Logic and have preferred the 5 channel version as better overall and more natural sounding about 80% of the time.  Note, this is a digital manipulation of the 2 channel sound and still sounds consistently superior.  I also have many times compared the stereo version with the exact same performance in 5 channel sound and there is almost always an improvement in sound.

Some folks think there is an inherent superiority in 2 channel music.  They also are the ones who never touch a tone control or EQ to flatten out there in room speaker response as if that is some sort of audiophile heresy.  (Even though they have a severe in-room peak at 70Hz or a big peak from 200-400Hz, Huh!  

My speakers have superior off axis dispersion and my three L, C, R are all the exact same speaker for superb front stage tonal matching.  The rear surrounds have the same exact two drivers for excellent tonal marching and are mounted high on the wall to reproduce the most natural reflective sound (much of it non-direct).

His best buddy is the one who some time back started a thread about the myth of matched center channel speakers.  Mostly pure nonsense claiming one could satisfactorily match a center speaker to a L&R unmatched speaker by using EQ frequency manipulation of the unmatched center speaker.   Does his buddy actually have a 5 speaker system, just curious? 

Good Grief.  Maybe one could also buy unmatched Left and Right speakers for a stereo pair at a garage sale or flea market and save lots of dough by simply EQ'ing them.

Now I Must admit that my signature has never been restated since my last sabbatical but I do have a complete mostly Emotva 5.1 system and listen to both 2 and 5.1 music as well as movies.  I might have noticed before but have since forgotten but I now see that Garbulky seems to have only 2 channel gear?  Is that true or does he just not list his surround gear?    Has he never owned surround gear?  (Or in some time?)

That's all for now since my Jet rag is still active.  I hope Garbulky will reply directly to my questions about his system and my comments about surround sound and not do the circle jerk again.




PS/BTW, as I mentioned before:

Next time you and/or Boomsilly do a review/shootout how about posting some good photos of the room, your gear rack, speakers, hook ups, seats and the products being tested, etc. I usually have in all of my reviews (most have been way back). Photos are easy to post and give us some extra confidence in and idea of your test environment.

PS2:     Plus, my Easy Nut Test (Made in America) is the official DAC sound test of the National Blind Foundation.   Call now and get a second test absolutely free.  Call within the next 10 minutes and we'll throw in another test for your buddy, absolutely free.    (small S&H fee)