SACD vs Standard CD

[Ian_of_glos]

I have only just joined the Radio 3 forum so I apologise if this has been asked before
Does anyone know why labels such as Hyperion and DG have stopped producing SACDs? Having just invested a lot of money in an SACD player, I was disappointed to find that many of my favourite recordings are only available as standard CDs - even some quite recent recordings. Is this decline likely to continue or will SACD see a revival, at least for classical recordings?

[Dave2002]

I really don't know why, though if there were ever SACDs of particular performances made, then maybe eBay is the place to look - or perhaps Japan. I think there are people round here who know about Japanese sources of high quality discs - including SACDs.

Sony/CBS never really did get fully into SACDs, though way back they produced some SACD only (i.e. not hybrid) discs. Rumour has it that some of them were good, and better than the equivalent CDs.
I'm thinking of some older recordings, such as those by Bruno Walter. There are lists of SACDs which are worth looking up - internet search, though where a company has fairly recently issued SACDs and may now have taken those out of the catalogue it may be purely for financial reasons. One company which seems to be doing something a bit different is LSO Live, which is now issuing bundles of CDs together with Blu Ray Audio discs - whereas previously SACDs were part of the deal.

I suspect that SACD is in its final death throes - though I might be wrong.

[ANON]

I suspect that SACD is in its final death throes - though I might be wrong.

Couldn't have come a minute too soon.

Usual stuff.
Some cartel in the industry (usual guilty parties like Sony or Philips) foists this thing on everyone ostensibly (yet again) to inhibit the right to copy or some other fake excuse.

[Bryn]

There is a rearguard action from a few of the smaller players such as BIS, Chandos, Linn et al. The two main advantages of SACD are higher audio definition and the option of surround sound. Both are even better provided by Blu-ray which, like SACD, also offers those who commit their recordings to it a greater level of protection against copyright infringement. Surround has not really caught on in a big way and most listeners are not that concerned about higher audio definition than that provided by Red Book CD. DVD Audio went even quicker than SACD. Those wanting higher definition audio and/or surround can also be served by downloads such as those from eClassical.

[jayne lee wilson]

Cost/benefit analysis of disc v file production; rise of streaming services esp. re classical hi-res/lossless....

If you want to find a large selection of SACDs, have a browse around HMV Japan... the golden era of Japanese remasters may be over, but there are still lots of SACDs.... it is easy to open an account, only problem may be Customs charges should you choose to order....
But I was never a fan of DSD, always preferring the PCM hi-res equivalent.

HighlandDougie knows more about this...his SACD-cat knowledge more uptodate than my own I suspect...

[ANON]

1/ The two main advantages of SACD are higher audio definition and the option of surround sound.

2/ Both are even better provided by Blu-ray which, like SACD, also offers those who commit their recordings to it a greater level of protection against copyright infringement.

3/ Surround has not really caught on in a big way and most listeners are not that concerned about higher audio definition than that provided by Red Book CD. DVD Audio went even quicker than SACD.

1/ 2/ and 3 all wrong.
If you want to know why surround doesn't catch on, (we have been doing it for years successfully), is because the majority of recording engineers are clueless to produce even a decent stereo recording.
Surround they are LOST, then you have to validate their crap work.

90% of stereo recordings are good for the toilet.
It's an infinitely small number that actually know what they're doing for surround (eg, Neil Wilkes).

DVD-Audio (PCM) was an excellent standard, but the usual culprits in the industry threw it under a bus, and thus made it almost impossible to author as a result!

[pastoralguy]

I always buy the SACD option, if possible, in the hope that when I win the lottery I'll be able to afford a proper SACD set up!

[ANON]

It will no doubt comfort you a good deal to know, on my blind tests with people who routinely do all kinds of weird things, from power conditioners, to multi 1000 quid speaker cables, placing them on blocks and swearing blind they could tell the electricity was "cleaner" at weekends...

Those same people couldn't tell the difference between my "hi res" 24 bit audio originals from our live opera recordings and high rate mp3 formats of the same music.
In fact they routinely said the mp3 files were BETTER. (wrongly)

[richardfinegold]

I love SACDs and have approximately 200 of them. Classical is the one genre that has saved SACD from extinction; there are thousands of titles available. There is a perception in the Audiophile community that SACDs are extinct, usually perpetuated by writers that do not listen to Classical. The enthusiasm for SACD is particularly strong in the Far East. Since the demand for Classical recordings is also stronger in the Far East (witness the emphasis of DG on signing Asian Artists), I suspect that this synergy alone will keep SACD alive, albeit as a niche market.
It is disheartening to see labels such as Hyperion and Chandos aren’t supporting the format as they have, but smaller specialty labels dedicated to releasing Classical in SACD pop up, such as Eudora, or MDG, or Tacet, and will hopefully thrive. As long as BIS and Pentatone keep churning them out I will be happy...
While I agree both with the observations of Bryn and the OP, the biggest threat to SACD is streaming. All Silver Discs are on the verge of extinction, and niche products such as SACD and Blu Ray will walk the plank before the more popular Red Book format, if it happens. I don’t think that such an outcome will occur, but I wouldn’t rule it out, either.
Another factor in the Audiophile market is that current DACs have tremendously improved just in the last few years, extracting much more data from Red Book than was ever thought possible, and therefore decreasing the gap between the two formats, decreasing the incentive to invest in SACD. This is parallel by improving quality of streamers or Streamer-DACs, and many find High Resolution offerings from Tidal or Qobuz satisfying the Audiophile itch.
I have 2 Multichannel systems in my home, in addition to my preferred two channel system. So it pains me to acknowledge that Multichannel has failed in the marketplace, for 2 reasons 1) most people don’t perceive a need for it, and 2) The technical challenges. This includes running wire around the house and the constantly changing standards that render AVRs and Cables obsolete with great frequency. The rise of networked wired speakers may help overcome this, and I think in the next decade such products will lead to a small resurgence in Multichannel (and therefore SACD and Blu Ray).
Hopefully they standards won’t change every year.

[Dave2002]

In fact they routinely said the mp3 files were BETTER. (wrongly)

”wrongly” is a bit subjective. I was once given three recordings to listen to. I could tell the difference between them - they were all the same base recording compressed to different levels. I was not given the option of listening to the source original, either while being tested or afterwards. I ended up “preferring” the lowest bit rate mp3. I could hear the artefacts with the higher bit rate versions, but the low bit rate sounded smoother, so I opted for that. I think that was simply because the processing had removed some of the high frequencies, though not so much as to make it dull and lifeless. I recall thinking it sounded a bit like some DG recordings, though I don’t think the original was one of those.

This does not mean I would always choose the lowest bit rate - far from it, nor would I generally want recordings to sound “silky smooth” - but that was roughly the effect on that occasion.

[ANON]

It is disheartening to see labels such as Hyperion and Chandos aren’t supporting the format as they have,

While I agree both with the observations of Bryn and the OP, the biggest threat to SACD is streaming.

Another factor in the Audiophile market is that current DACs have tremendously improved just in the last few years, extracting much more data from Red Book than was ever thought possible...

I have 2 Multichannel systems in my home, in addition to my preferred two channel system.

So it pains me to acknowledge that Multichannel has failed in the marketplace, for 2 reasons 1) most people don’t perceive a need for it, and 2) The technical challenges.

I start with your last point.
Multichannel failed miserably not because of anything to with the client end, but because the people supposed to be creating the content were cretins, and even worse than that, lots of multichannel is done with codecs like DTS or AC3 which sound terrible, because it was subbed down to support video not primarily sound.

Mix 2 totally different groups of people (video and sound) up & it won't end well.
+
If you can't find anyone capable of making a half convincing recording even in stereo, fat chance of asking them to understand multi channel (witness the crazy and stupid attempts to keep the calrec soundfield microphone going as a source).

I talked about DACs the other day.
They haven't improved at all but the prices shot thru the roof for mostly pretty lousy stuff.
(look at my ARCAM test of a few weeks ago!)
The only thing that improved a little was getting rid of a lot of the "brick wall" filters which were the bane of commercial CD players, but so what?
You don't have to use that stuff when you can get direct access to the data on the CD quite easily and write it to a sound file format like 16 bit wav, for HD access anyhow.

In my opinion the biggest threat to SACD was never streaming it was the simple extreme stupidity of mastering everything in linear PCM to begin with (at say 96-24 or 192-24) then having to CONVERT it afterwards to a SACD format.

This was caused of course by the industry trying to con the studios and the people making the content to pay insane amounts for a software licence, and making a lot of the processes proprietory.

If you want to know,that's the reason why I wouldn't dream of having anything to do with SACD,- it's just a great big swindle.

[richardfinegold]

I disagree that DAcCs haven’t improved. The amount of detail retrievable with Quality DACs is mind boggling compared to a few years ago. I would not consider Arcam in that discussion.. My last two DACs have been the Mytek Manhatten and Bryston DAC3, both of which do wonders for earl digital recordings

[Dave2002]

They haven't improved at all but the prices shot thru the roof for mostly pretty lousy stuff.
(look at my ARCAM test of a few weeks ago!)

Where is your ARCAM test? Please provide the evidence. I can't see it from any link or post within this area.

Some of the points you raise are interesting and may be valid, though you seem to have a scatter gun approach to blasting anything which you think you don't like. Can you really do better? You claim to have made opera recordings, and surround sound recordings.

You mention converting data files to 16 bit wav files, though that may itself limit the SQ.

[ANON]

Where is your ARCAM test? Please provide the evidence. I can't see it from any link or post within this area.
You claim to have made opera recordings, and surround sound recordings.

You mention converting data files to 16 bit wav files, though that may itself limit the SQ.

I don't CLAIM anything, I work in live recording for many years.
It happened more or less by accident, especially after being very dissatisfied with Nimbus record's awful recordings which were hyped to heck. It was the first case of spin I can remember, and it wasn't the vinyl spinning!

The last major project I did in Western Europe was for Udo Reinemann, after which I could see no future in the EU as things stood.
We did a "Winterreise" for him which was in surround, but the concert was slated.
The Brahms requiem was gorgeous, but not releasable.
He is dead, but I kept in touch with the fantastic pianists from that time.
You can learn so much about music listening to singers being coached.

This was well before the SACD appeared, and of course there are Audio "gurus" who claim "surround doesn't work"
oh... so everything that IRCAM PARIS did was "masturbation de la tete?".
Even today it's nigh on impossible to find a "hi end" audio shop that doesn't live in the 1960s...
None of them will ever have a "surround" system in their shop that works apart for "home theatre"

Neil* and I have bemoaned this terrible mess for years.

As for the DAC test this was supposed to be a SQUARE WAVE

As you can see, my own sound card is not perfect, showing a little ringing after the leading edge, but nothing could ever have prepared me for the crap that came out of the other one.
(I did promise that company I would post those results for everyone to see).

*Neil Wilkes, works for Opus Productions.

[Bryn]

Re. #14, the link leads not to any kind of test result but to an old post of mine regarding the licence conditions of Total Recorder and the anomalous quantization it was attributed to the Radio 3 Proms FLAC stream then available. A search on this forum for advice on how to post links to images might be advisable.