We're talking about different aspects here. SACD for single disc. BR audio were issuing single disc titles, and that slowed to a trickle. The only one is recent memory is the new Tears for Fears, and look how that turned out. You answered your own question. These are almost exclusively being put out in boxes. (Anyone mixed by Steven Wilson dies this too.) Btw, the only one Stones title had BR was the Ghost Head Soup. They skipped it for Tattoo You. Meantime, MFSL is tackling the Eagles and Van Halen catalogs on SACD.
Funny thing, I think I have purchased more SACD discs lately than regular discs. I’ve purchased six discs by Lyn Stanley, two by Patricia Barber, a Kenny Dorham, Otis Redding, three Eagles, Supertramp, Fleetwood Mac, Jennifer Warnes, Tony Bennett and a bunch of classical discs. I probably have about 700 total including all of the AP jazz series. If they never put out another title, I would still be set for the rest of my life.
The Discogs prices are absolutely misleading. As-new/sealed SACDs (like the first round of Sony titles) typically sell at auction on UK eBay for considerably less than £30 and have done for years. It's a total rip-off, denizens of ebay go absolutely nuts for them, but it's not like anything's changed as of late. There are obviously idiots with lots of money who buy them at high fixed prices shown on Discogs but I'm not convinced the prices have increased lately, if anything, they have declined.
I’m a little surprised about it but I’m happy.When it is done right it is a great format that is emotionally involving and not fatiguing. SACD, when done right, is like a marriage of the positive attributes of both analog and digital.
Totally agree, SACD to me is the perfect compromise. I have no intention of going back down the rabbit hole of vinyl at my age. Besides, my wife would probably put out a contract on me if I even suggested it.
I'm in this primarily for surround but do have a fair amount of stereo discs. More recently, in a typical year, I buy about 50% new releases and 50% previously released stuff. Checking my Discogs account, I purchased 40 hi-rez / surround discs in the last 16 months. Of the new releases, there were two DVD (Cyan, Jethro Tull), one SACD (Mr. Big), and the rest were on Blu-Ray. I didn't buy any hi-rez stereo discs last year. I love my SACDs and have a closet full of players to support my SACDs (alongside my DVDA's) long after the format is dead, but Blu-Ray is really where it is at right now.
Intervention just put up Quincy Jones' "The Dude" SACD for pre-order. The Dude CD/SACD (PRE-ORDER NOW!)
For those predicting demise of the format, there sure has been a recent uptick in release announcements.
The reason mainly being it's still the most efficient way to deliver 5.1 on disc. Or high-res for that matter in general. BD is still much more expensive to produce and author. For a large artist Blu-ray makes sense, but for everybody else, SACD does the job (unless you have a crap ton of bonus features).
MFSL, IR and whomever else were largely frozen out of getting their titles pressed on SACD over the last 2 years. It doesn't take much to hear complaints here if something isn't out pronto. When it finally is, you hear brids chirping.
From what I have read, it is combination of licensing, production (authoring, mastering etc) and finally reproduction. There is only facility in North America that makes them any more. I have heard many times that it costs twice as much to produce a Bluray vs. a DVD. It's hard to remember sometimes but the SACD is basically a DVD running on different software. The first SACD demos from Sony came out in 1999 IIRC.
Thanks. The reason I asked is because what you've written about video Blu Rays is most certainly true. For every video disc, Sony gets a percentage (since it's their technology), which would certainly increase costs. I've also heard (but cannot find a source), however, that audio only Blu Rays do not require paying Sony a percentage. IF that's true, it would likely not be any more expensive to produce an audio only Blu Ray than it would be to produce an SACD (at least, I can't imagine that it would be significantly more expensive).
SACD production costs lower than you'd expect. Can't say more than that without getting into trouble. Audio-only Blu-rays are actually MORE expensive to produce than Video Blu-rays in my experience simply because unlike Video Blu-rays, Audio Blu-rays have to do certain things that can only be authored in higher-end software rather than lower-end software that's more commonly available. For limited runs and lower quantities, SACD makes way more sense financially. You could author a Video Blu-ray with no video content, but it wouldn't neet PABD/HFPA standards and you'd still run into the Blu-ray costs way more as a medium in general bit. Edit: Royalties are there for ALL Blu-rays, regardless of format. SACD is basically a souped up DVD with some physical differences and encryption.
In that case still wondering why the music industry is releasing nowadays more albums at blu-ray than at SACD.
This industry is making illogical things. They are selling Ultra HD Blu-Ray at 30€ (at least, so more than 40$), they are killing physical format by insanes choices. The right price should be 20$. I'm agree with what has been said, SACD is the perfect compromise ... I discovered their sound just because my first CD player was also a SACD one, so I tried.
Blu-rays are nowadays also often to find in deluxe editions of albums, so many more than you maybe think...
I suspect more people out there know what a Blu-Ray is and have the hardware to play it. Having said that, the target audience (all of us) likely have the ability to play both
