Serious Question: Were SACD and DVD-A Created As Audiophile Formats

[YaQuin]

Theres has been some discussion in the Genesis 5.1 thread basically implying that SACD is now a mainstream music format, read "it's ok to master sacds in a similar fashion to 'modern' sounding cds". (this is a paraphase, as I am not quoting anyone in particular)

My question is what was the intention or Sony to release SACD and what was the intention of WB to release DVD-A? Was it to present the music in all of it's wonderful glory? Or, is it another way to get you to re-buy your whole collection?

This is a serious question that I'm really looking for a discussion about. Am I missing the point? :confused:

[Metoo]

As far as I can remember, Sony came up with DSD when looking for a way to archive their recordings. Of course, AFAIK this is not longer the case, some other format/s is/are used now.

When Sony launched SACD the price of the discs and the players was quite high and mainly, if not solely, audiophile buffs took to it. This does not mean it was meant as an audiophile product no matter how many audiophiles see it. In fact, until very recently the opinion of the more audiophile types was that DVD-Audio was designed for the masses and SACD for audiophiles. I think this is a skewed take on two formats that have similarities in the philosophy behind their designs to what is happening with HD-DVD and BluRay today.

IMHO, the reason why SACD and DVD-A hit the market is the same one why high definition television has hit the market: it was the next logical step in digital quality. Unfortunately, these products came by very little before the Internet bubble burst, 9-11, and the pervasiveness of free downloadable music. And, since uncertain times make people more conservative money wise and mp3s were there for free, Joe Public decided against the logical technological succesion towards lower quality, which comes to show that nothing can compete against free.

Other than this, a point can be made that new technologies are a good excuse to sell the products again, and it does have some base. Just look at what moves the heavily tech-centric computer business. In this case, even previous hard disk technologies are no longer compatible with current computers.

At the end of the day, I believe that a new technology can make people buy things again (after all many people are buying mp3s of music they already had, so it has nothing to do with HiRez or not) if it has enough value for them to do it.

Just my 2 cents. :)

[fjhuerta]

I read a very thoughtful post here on some other thread (can't remember which) that stated perfectly well why SACD was created....

"Sony and Philips' royalties would stop pouring in after CD's 20th Anniversary. They needed a new format to keep the $$$ coming".

I do believe this was the main reason for launching SACD. Sure, it sounds better... how many people cared, besides us?

[Anthology123]

As far as I can remember, Sony came up with DSD when looking for a way to archive their recordings. Of course, AFAIK this is not longer the case, some other format/s is/are used now.

When Sony launched SACD the price of the discs and the players was quite high and mainly, if not solely, audiophile buffs took to it.

IMHO, the reason why SACD and DVD-A hit the market is the same one why high definition television has hit the market: it was the next logical step in digital quality. Unfortunately, these products came by very little before the Internet bubble burst, 9-11, and the pervasiveness of free downloadable music. And, since uncertain times make people more conservative money wise and mp3s were there for free, Joe Public decided against the logical technological succesion towards lower quality, which comes to show that nothing can compete against free.

Other than this, a point can be made that new technologies are a good excuse to sell the products again, and it does have some base. Just look at what moves the heavily tech-centric computer business. In this case, even previous hard disk technologies are no longer compatible with current computers.

At the end of the day, I believe that a new technology can make people buy things again (after all many people are buying mp3s of music they already had, so it has nothing to do with HiRez or not) if it has enough value for them to do it.

Just my 2 cents. :)

This is history repeating itself. As MP3 provided free music to "Joe Public", so did AM radio in the 20s and 30s (especially depression era) and there was a definite drop in record sales because of it. Same difference, too since AM radio sounded worse that the records of that day, too. The only difference is in the mid 30s, the industry did something to bring people back to records, while today, it seems the record companies answer is lawsuits.

[LeeS]

DSD was created as an archival format for analog tape originally.

[soundQman]

My question is what was the intention or Sony to release SACD and what was the intention of WB to release DVD-A? Was it to present the music in all of it's wonderful glory? Or, is it another way to get you to re-buy your whole collection?Both, I think. It's sort of like computer software: buy the new version to fix your problems with the old version they sold you, plus it's New and Improved!

[soundQman]

DSD was created as an archival format for analog tape originally.I've read elsewhere that after record companies digitized their archived material at lower standards (redbook), some of them discarded the original analog tapes! I wonder how prevalent that practice was. With all the remasters and claims of using original tapes it doen't seem like many actually did that, but I don't know.

[creativepart]

I think SACD and DVD-A were developed solely as a way to stop disc copying. You can't rip a digital copy of an SACD or a DVD-A without buying $15,000 pro-equipment. These formats, if they replaced CDs, would end burning CDR copies of your music on your computer.

They just marketed it as better sounding... or multi-channel... or whatever will sell the darn things and put an end to burning copies as fast as possible.

[proufo]

Both, I think. It's sort of like computer software: buy the new version to fix your problems with the old version they sold you[/B]
Congratulations! You don't use the same software that I use.

In mine, the new version keeps most of the old bugs and include several new and mostly useless capabilities that generate new opportunities for dissatisfaction.

[Shakey]

I agree with the DSD story, the copyright story and on the way they found out they had space for DRM.

[Patrick]

Theres has been some discussion in the Genesis 5.1 thread basically implying that SACD is now a mainstream music format, read "it's ok to master sacds in a similar fashion to 'modern' sounding cds".

Dont blame the format. Both cd and sacd "can be" audiophile formats, depending on the care taken in production/transferring/remastering.

In my opinion: Most of the small classical labels putting out sacd treat it as an audiophile format (sound quality matters)
A lot of the big labels putting out "popular music" treat SACD and DVD-Audio as a mainstream product: (sound quality does not matter, being loudest matters)

[Metoo]

I read a very thoughtful post here on some other thread (can't remember which) that stated perfectly well why SACD was created....

"Sony and Philips' royalties would stop pouring in after CD's 20th Anniversary. They needed a new format to keep the $$$ coming".

I do believe this was the main reason for launching SACD. Sure, it sounds better... how many people cared, besides us?
I forgot this, this has also been mentioned as a reason for developing SACD (although not really DSD itself. which as I said before, was to be used for archiving).

Then there is also the 'hidden' reason that many hold Sony/Philips responsible for the rise in copying due to their invention of the CD. SACD, as you know, has a much more 'water tight' protection scheme.

[Baba O'Riley]

I read a very thoughtful post here on some other thread (can't remember which) that stated perfectly well why SACD was created....
"Sony and Philips' royalties would stop pouring in after CD's 20th Anniversary. They needed a new format to keep the $$$ coming".
I do believe this was the main reason for launching SACD. Sure, it sounds better... how many people cared, besides us?

True, was in all the papers in Holland at the time.

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/899awsi/
We are witnessing a subtle but grim struggle to control the economic linchpin that always determines who supports what in the technology and media worlds: licensing. If the world adopts DVD-Audio for all things audio, Sony's and Philips' vested interests in CD-platform royalties dwindle with each DVD convert. But if SACD can be successfully positioned as the audio format of the next century, then the licensing cycle starts anew, with Sony/Philips once again in the driver's seat. (As Sam Tellig mentions in this issue's "Sam's Space," the licensing rights for CD are about to run out.) Don't expect Sony/Philips to lie down and let DVD-Audio happen, and don't expect the DVD-Audio folk to abandon the fight for the keys to the digital kingdom without a fight.

[rauer]

Read my lips: COPY PROTECTION

[Metralla]

Read my lips: COPY PROTECTION
Why wasn't this as compelling to the record companies as it seems?

[SamS]

Why wasn't this as compelling to the record companies as it seems?

I would imagine because the cost of releasing/mixing a title on a hi-rez format outweighed the potential lost revenue from piracy.

[Metralla]

I would imagine because the cost of releasing/mixing a title on a hi-rez format outweighed the potential lost revenue from piracy.
The thing was that at the same time that SACD crept on the scene, all we ever heard from the majors was the cost of pirating from SE Asia, E Europe and South America. By their own admission, they were losing billions. I don't think your answer is the complete story.

[SamS]

The thing was that at the same time that SACD crept on the scene, all we ever heard from the majors was the cost of pirating from SE Asia, E Europe and South America. By their own admission, they were losing billions. I don't think your answer is the complete story.


But no one in those pirate-heavy countries owned or had access to hi-rez players.

I think the reason is two fold: 1) cost of mixing/producing/replicating a 5.1 SACD or DVD-A title is rumored to be $100K, and 2) the whole royalty thing from CD/stereo layer/MCH layer got the lawyers involved and things got hairy fast. The major labels probably just decided it wasn't worth the headache.

Even with SACD/DVD-A "dead" I'm glad we got what we did, when we did. Makes ya long for those circa-2001 glory days of both nice hardware and software :sigh: