# Where are the SACDs??



## gr8gunz

I just bought an expensive SACD player so I could listen to all that great classical music recorded on them. Well, I have quite a few now and most are excellent recordings. 

My biggest beef with SACD is that the release of music on this medium seems to have slowed to a crawl. 

Has SACD died and heading for the oops pile along with 8 track tapes???


----------



## Musicbox

Its dying slowly.... but lots of smaller classical specialist labels are still releasing on SACD e.g. BIS, Hansler, Pentatone, Exton, LSO Live, and several others.

Universal Classics (DG, Decca, Philips) seems to have dropped it after some releases a few years ago, but big deal as they seem to have stopped releasing anything interesting anyway!

Still one or two things coming out from Sony.

I wouldn't worry - the format will be around for several years more and even if it becomes more difficult to find new releases on it, you'll always have the SACDs you've got and will be able to enjoy them. It is so so so far superior to normal CD.


----------



## Ukko

Musicbox said:


> It is so so so far superior to normal CD.


In stereo format, its superiority is minimal.


----------



## Musicbox

I find otherwise. Huge difference, even in stereo.


----------



## Ukko

The objectivity of your subjectivity is in question.

:devil:


----------



## gr8gunz

It really depends. I have a few that will rattle the walls and a few that are very disappointing. I would say most are significantly better than normal CD.


----------



## Rangstrom

I just added SACD to my setup and have only a few discs, but so far the results (in stereo) have been mixed. On one (Suk Asreal/Ondine) the regular cd layer sounded better. Since most of my listening is under headphones I'm can't report on surround sound.

Given the trend toward mp3s, streaming and youtube, we'll be lucky if sound quality doesn't get worse.


----------



## Ukko

Rangstrom said:


> I just added SACD to my setup and have only a few discs, but so far the results (in stereo) have been mixed. On one (Suk Asreal/Ondine) the regular cd layer sounded better. Since most of my listening is under headphones I'm can't report on surround sound.
> 
> Given the trend toward mp3s, streaming and youtube, we'll be lucky if sound quality doesn't get worse.


The quality of both Redbook CD and SACD discs relies on the quality of recording and mastering. When both are produced with the best equipment and sufficient skill, without deliberate dynamic or frequency range compression (e.g. rock/pop), the differences between CD and SACD are subtle. The CD cannot reliably reproduce the high partials beyond approximately 14KHz, and its 16 bit depth at least theoretically limits fine gradations in dynamics. I suspect that the accessibility of wider limits _in the concert hall_ is extremely limited. Possessors of Golden Ears may legitimately detect SACD improvements in their homes.

I do not envy them.


----------



## Vaneyes

8-Track, Quadraphonic, Beta, Mini-disc, Cassette tape, DVD-audio, SACD, 3-D, etc, etc. The junk-pile builds.


----------



## Rangstrom

Vaneyes said:


> 8-Track, Quadraphonic, Beta, Mini-disc, Cassette tape, DVD-audio, SACD, 3-D, etc, etc. The junk-pile builds.


For the more "mature" crowd add LPs and Reel-to-Reel (which may still be unsurpassed for tonal beauty).


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Got rid of all my LPs, casettes, Panasonic reel-to-reel, and all that crap. 8-track always did suk.

CDs rule!

SACDs don't work for me unless they're hybrid; too expensive anyway. Conventional is just dandy.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

There are lots of SACD: Paavo Jarvi Beethven cycle (great), BIS also has very interesting catalogue, you shoud try some Jansons recordings on RCO Live (his Alpinesinphine by Strauss and his Poulenc), there are also Linn Records and Channel Classics (try their Pulcinella by Stravinsky, for exmple).

ECM also has some recordings of Bartok, for example.

I don't have SACD-player yet, but I bought these because the sound quality of CD layer. I think it's great that minor label investigate into the recording technology. That I don't understand is why major labels don't do this.

I hate *EMI Classics* for having medoicre (for today) sound quality! I'm afraid of buying their recordings, even if they are cheap... Just compare their New Year in Vienna recordings and DG. DG is not the best but still is better.

I don't listen to rock music now, but I have a friend of mine who listens for a lot of 1980s rock stuff and he buys only old out of printed CDs or found 24bit RIPs from vynil without that horrible "improvement" of the sound (compressing and remastering). Hope it will not influence classical music industry.


----------



## TxllxT

I've got a SACD with Shostakovich's Preludes & Fugues played on organ. The difference is heard in the lower bass regions, which extend into the sub-audible below-20 Hz areas (for human ears this is heard as organ-windblowing): this renders the church-acoustics better than with the 20 Hz filter on normal CDs cutting off the subs (this for saving your speakers). But most SACD recordings offer a kind of dynamics varying between ppp & fff almost like in the concerthall, that is not fitting in most of the livingroom surroundings, and certainly not fitting for listening to in a car. For example Gergiev's Symphony Nos 1 & 15 of Shostakovich forces you to turn up the volume very much just to make you able to listen to the 'normal' mezzo-levels; the fortissimo's come out clean & well, but the build-up of orchestral power to my taste recedes too much backward into the concerthall acoustics. The pianissimo's on the other hand are too ppp, for my ears at least . This dynamical surplus I do not consider to add much to musical enjoyment. I don't like to be pushing the remote during a listening session. (Listening is done on Arcam, Arcam & Von Schweikert)


----------



## kmisho

double-blind testing of SACD vs CD has unfortunately revealed that people mostly can't tell any difference.

Also did you know that Stradivarius string instruments do not have superior sound?


----------



## kmisho

Adding that I picked up the Exton Stravinsky works conducted by Zweden...and I only have a CD player. Good stuff!


----------



## kmisho

Moscow-Mahler said:


> There are lots of SACD: Paavo Jarvi Beethven cycle (great), BIS also has very interesting catalogue, you shoud try some Jansons recordings on RCO Live (his Alpinesinphine by Strauss and his Poulenc), there are also Linn Records and Channel Classics (try their Pulcinella by Stravinsky, for exmple).
> 
> ECM also has some recordings of Bartok, for example.
> 
> I don't have SACD-player yet, but I bought these because the sound quality of CD layer. I think it's great that minor label investigate into the recording technology. That I don't understand is why major labels don't do this.
> 
> I hate *EMI Classics* for having medoicre (for today) sound quality! I'm afraid of buying their recordings, even if they are cheap... Just compare their New Year in Vienna recordings and DG. DG is not the best but still is better.
> 
> I don't listen to rock music now, but I have a friend of mine who listens for a lot of 1980s rock stuff and he buys only old out of printed CDs or found 24bit RIPs from vynil without that horrible "improvement" of the sound (compressing and remastering). Hope it will not influence classical music industry.


Remastering can can be a significant improvement. The compression has gone overboard though.


----------



## hespdelk

I love the format and try to support it. I personally notice a significant difference even in only stereo, but its true, the magnitude of the difference will vary from disc to disc depending on all the usual factors involved in creating a recording.

Yes, most of the old "majors" have dropped off support.. but there seem to be more and more independents jumping into the fray. Its worth noting that most CPO releases are also hybrid sacds these days - kudos to them.

I mourn the loss of major label support as I was hoping to see many more classic recordings rereleased in the format.. It seems DG is still doing it though, as they recently did a boxed set of the old Karajan Beethoven set from the 60s. The old RCA Living Stereo series is not to be missed.. I have almost all of them.

A good resource online to finding the latest releases (and looking up older ones) is www.sa-cd.net
I've also turned up some unexpected finds just by looking things up on Amazon.. sadly brick and mortar stores have mostly pathetic selections.. or have them mixed in with regular cds which makes finding anything a bit of a challenge.


----------



## Guest

When I first bought a 2-channel SACD player (Marantz SA 15), I heard a far warmer, more detailed sound--the typical digital glare/"free-dried" effect was virtually gone. Then, when I upgraded to multi-channel (necessitated buying all electronics, including a Sony 5400ES player and 6400ES receiver), I heard an even greater improvement. Having the acoustics of the hall reproduced added a three-dimentionality that obviously eludes 2-channel, plus the stage width and overall imaging greatly improved.

I second the SACD.net site as a great source. Also, MDT in England has a separate SACD search engine:http://www.mdt.co.uk/


----------



## Vaneyes

Moscow-Mahler said:


> I hate *EMI Classics* for having medoicre (for today) sound quality! I'm afraid of buying their recordings, even if they are cheap... Just compare their New Year in Vienna recordings and DG. DG is not the best but still is better.


My condolences for your displeasure. I have many fine sounding EMI CDs.


----------



## Guest

I was considering this SACD upgrade but the price $NZ70-80 per CD put me right off normal CD NZ$15 -20 average, They will die mark my words


----------



## TxllxT

Kontrapunctus said:


> When I first bought a 2-channel SACD player (Marantz SA 15), I heard a far warmer, more detailed sound--the typical digital glare/"free-dried" effect was virtually gone. Then, when I upgraded to multi-channel (necessitated buying all electronics, including a Sony 5400ES player and 6400ES receiver), I heard an even greater improvement. Having the acoustics of the hall reproduced added a three-dimentionality that obviously eludes 2-channel, plus the stage width and overall imaging greatly improved.
> 
> I second the SACD.net site as a great source. Also, MDT in England has a separate SACD search engine:http://www.mdt.co.uk/


My Arcam DV139 eats almost all audio formats, I've got speakers in front, in the back & in the centre, that are able to render the acoustics of a cathedral quite amazingly. But.... after some time (at least, that's my experience) you will notice that all these 3D audio fireworks are not faultless. Why to be distracted from concentrating on the music, when an audio-engineer wilfully wants me to listen instead to the (without doubt beautiful) acoustics? I've noticed too often, that such an audio-engineer is not thoroughly at home with the classical music he is recording. Walter Legge (1906-1979) for example was an audio-engineer, who *knew* what to record and what to leave out. Where are the Walter Legges of today?


----------



## Vaneyes

Andante said:


> I was considering this SACD upgrade but the price $NZ70-80 per CD put me right off normal CD NZ$15 -20 average, They will die mark my words


It's dead for all intents and purposes. Pricing was just one of many calamties for SACD. This farce is ready to use as case study for business schools. May it rest in peace.


----------



## Ukko

Vaneyes said:


> It's dead for all intents and purposes. Pricing was just one of many calamties for SACD. This farce is ready to use as case study for business schools. May it rest in peace.


Hah! The linked photo is reminiscent of an early top-access 'hi-fi' cassette deck I once owned.

The Kiwi's experience with SACD pricing doesn't match mine. The moribund condition of the technology has more to do with the quality_* non-demands*_ of pop-rap than with price issues.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hah! The linked photo is reminiscent of an early top-access 'hi-fi' cassette deck I once owned.
> 
> The Kiwi's experience with SACD pricing doesn't match mine. The moribund condition of the technology has more to do with the quality_* non-demands*_ of pop-rap than with price issues.


I have never had the chance to hear a SACD and even if the audio quality was perfect at the prices I have been told about it committed suicide, the way of the future may be holographic crystals which at the moment are very expencive and store information 3 dimensionally so I would imagine play back would eliminate all those moving parts of CD and DVD players.


----------



## haydnfan

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hah! The linked photo is reminiscent of an early top-access 'hi-fi' cassette deck I once owned.
> 
> The Kiwi's experience with SACD pricing doesn't match mine. The moribund condition of the technology has more to do with the quality_* non-demands*_ of pop-rap than with price issues.


I think it more has to do with the trend towards portability. And cd was a significant stepup from analog with that audible noise floor and funky distortion. SACD simply doesn't offer a similar stepup from cds.


----------



## Vaneyes

haydnfan said:


> I think it more has to do with the trend towards portability. And cd was a significant stepup from analog with that audible noise floor and funky distortion. SACD simply doesn't offer a similar stepup from cds.


Non-portability was definitely one of the nails in the SACD coffin. That pretty much takes care of a large portion of the 18 to 34 demographic. Even if price was no problem for them.


----------

