SACD Hybrid CDs*

Getting back to the OP......if you do not have a player that WILL play the SACD layer why spend the extra $ on the hybrid disc......unless of course the mastering is from a source that is known to sound better than just a regular cd. Especially if you are planning to use it in your car..... ( not saying you treat your discs poorly, just my experience, vehicle use tends to scratch em up eventually. )

 

I half agree with you. But the fact is that the format nearly died back in about 2007 or so, but that it hung on by a thread there for a few years with only new classical releases coming out. Then a few years later the format started regaining some support from audiophile lables such as SHM, Mofi, AP and AF, and most recently from Dutton Vocalion.

And as much as this resurgence has pleased me (I've been a huge supporter of the format BTW), we need to be honest with ourselves: I don't think that any of these companies ever released any brand new recording on SACD. Almost everything has just been re-releases of old to very-old material.

And now Oppo is gone. AF is gone, and MoFi's and APs releases have both slowed to a trickle. So at best the format is on life support right now.

But I will admit that for classical music only listeners, SACD is still quite active. But that is the only market segment which is.

 

There 3 types of lies: "lies, dam lies and statistics."

SOURCE: RIAA – SACD Sales US 2003-2017

 

I agree with this. Why buy that disc if you can not listen to the DSD layer?

 

Do you guys know of some secret place where I can buy only the Mofi/AF CD layer? If you don't, then I'll continue to buy hybrid SACDs for the great mastering that is on the CD layer (and the SACD layer.)

 

Wow. That is not a healthy looking chart. If the scale it to be believed, that is less than 50K SACDs sold inside of the US in 2017. No wonder AF went under.

 

Yes, it has flatlined but it can come back that is not unbelievable. But if it takes 5, 10 years or never we will see.
If "Techmoan" on YouTube makes a video about SACD then we know that it is a dead format for shure.
But keep us hoop it will revive!

 

Yeeeeeeeeeah, I'm pretty sure that sales of the Dark Side of the Moon hybrid, the Rolling Stones Abkco hybrids, and the Sony Bob Dylan hybrids make up a HUGE proportion of those gigantic 2003 and 2004 sales. There were also Elton John and Eric Clapton hybrids around that time. Many folks simply bought those discs to have CD remasters of those artist's catalogs. The SACD was just a bonus (that many didn't know much about).

Take those major reissue campaigns out of the picture and the '03/'04 numbers wouldn't be much higher than the '05 - '07 ones.

 

Not only has it not failed as evident by production of SACD Players and Universal Players today but by production of stereo, hybrid, and multi-channel SACDs too. In fact multi-channel SACD is THE defacto state-of-the-art music storage medium today. And, all it takes to enjoy it is an inexpensive Sony UBD Player and the AVR or Prepro in an existing Home Theater system.

 

You did see this post?

Now there are no multi channel analogue SACD players in production, Oppo exited the market, AF exited the market and Marantz have dropped it from their lower end models. Whilst I still enjoy SACD (I have hundreds of them) there is very little knowledge of it in the wider community and sales are insignificant. It is not in a healthy state and only a matter of time before new players and new releases disappear.

 

Look, I'm a huge fan of the SACD format too, and I own a ton of SACDs. But you seem to be confusing what you (and I) wish to be true, with the hard cruel reality that the SACD format already has one foot in the grave.

 

I don’t want SACD to die. Please, somebody, please help it stay alive.

 

The SACD format is unfortunately fading quickly especially in regard to rock and jazz. But that doesn't change the enjoyment I will continue to get from playing the many SACDs from my collection. Just to be on the safe side I have a compliment of Oppo players just in case .

 

Hey, I've been doing everything I can by buying way more SACDs than I can afford over the last five years.

 

You know I think that it would have been worthwhile for the Beatles boxes and Bowie boxes and all the other boxes and CD's that are being heavily counterfeited to have been hybrid SACD's. The consumer would have got hi rez making each box more desirable and they can't be counterfeited at all so..... a win for the record companies (more sales) AND consumers (hi rez)..... but no..... for the major labels SACD is already dead.

 

I do... Buy a lot of them, having 2 (ecceptional) sacd players.....

 

What players do you recommend, siebrand?

 

obviously it depends on many things ... the budget, first, but also what kind of environment you have, which amplifier you use, with which speakers you listen ...
The Yamaha models are certainly very valid (both the CD-S2100 and the CD-S3000, but you could also look at Pioneer: the new PD-70AE - it's really a miracolous machine.
The new Techics SL-G700 is of similar cost and, surely worthfull for a listening.
They really are great sacd_players.
Off course we have to mention the Marantz products too: a true leader in terms of sacd.
In the Marantz house you will find many very valid players, I suggest you go to their website: there are prices for all budgets.
When you understand, more or less, the money that can be included in the budget you choose some readers and try to listen to it ... But please: if you can: do it in YOUR facility, in your house, BEFORE buying!

I use a Yamaha CD-S3000 and a Labtek HiEnd (tube). The Labtek is an Italian product, I don't know if it is available on the US market ...
I alternate the two readers: if I want a "warmer" sound I use Labtek, likely for classical music with few instruments.
For the classical symphonic, jazz and rock I usually prefer the sound of the CD-S3000: it's a bit more detailed but absolutely NOT cold ... and have a GREAT Dinamic.

 

While there are no multi-channel analog output SACD Players, Sony produces Universal Players today which output multi-channel SACD via HDMI. Also, while its not a main stream medium it's still the defacto state of the art music storage medium for stereo as well as multi-channel, where gapless play is important. It's not dead or dying. Of course, like other technologies, it's always a matter of time for them to become obsolete. But, for right now SACD is alive and well. Amazon and Acoustic Sounds have hundreds of stereo, hybrid, and multi-channel SACDs in most genres except Country.

 

Tell that to Kal Rubinson! He is a surround fanatic and although plays SACD's I believe most of his listening is surround, gapless, computer files. Stereo DSD is also available in file form so I wouldn't call SACD the defacto medium or state of the art, whether we like it or not we are all going to have computer files with this stuff on sooner or later.

 

I'm a marketing analyst and I can tell you my perception of where SACD is today is not wishful thinking. It's factual thinking based on observance of realities. HDMI, economical Universal Players, and Home Theater AVRs now make stereo and multi-channel SACDs an added value entertainment option without any expense other than the media itself. This alignment expands the market for multi-channel SACDs, which will encourage production. After all, multi-channel is where it's at for breadth and depth and SACD is the easiest means to such pleasure.

 

Here's what I can tell you. SACD is the easiest means to multi-channel pleasure, especially gapless performances. Maybe someday, multi-channel downloads will get the job done but right now the means to enjoy multi-channel computer files direct from computer to multi-channel audio system, i.e. Home Theater, is a lot of work, too much it appears for many consumers. I've got an OPPO 205 which allows me to play multi-channel music stored on thumb drives gaplessly and as convenient it is to play the files, it's not so easy to download, manage, or protect them.

 

Far from all Care about gapless feature..
To be honest I needed to look it up what gapless where (maybe that says more about me.. )
If gapless was a killer feature then we should not have vinyl revival.. yes maybe everybody plays tubular bells, 1812 or boléro.
But it do not help when it is anyway a big gap until we go up and turn over the record anyway. But it is maybe a killer feature for you. That is something else.
Gap is good stuff, how could we calibrate out auditory system without knowing how loud the silence is?

 

That is an interesting perspective which does lend some credibility to your argument. I shall not accuse you of wishful thinking again!

However, one idea which I disagree with is that the multichannel aspect being enough to keep SACD alive. I have a very good 5.1 setup, and I have an excellent 2.0 setup. And while I occasionally enjoy the surround sound on my 5.1 system, 99% of the time I prefer the better overall sound quality of my 2.0 system. IME a great stereo system can sound very 3D in its presentation without any need for the additional 3.1 speakers. And don't forget that the previous attempt at Surround Sound (called Quad) failed back in the 70s for some of the same reasons.

So I can't help but wonder if you are equating the entire SACD market with the surround-sound market, because I do not believe that these are one in the same. A great many of us SACD fans are fans due to the high-res aspect of SACD rather than for the occasional disk which contains a Surround sound mix.

So I think that you are overestimating the demand for surround sound in your analysis.

 

Number 4 is correct. Very little demand.