Are SACD and DVD-Audio dead yet?

Five speakers and sub for music? I don't think so!

(Credit: Steve Guttenberg)

It's interesting. Tens of millions of homes are equipped with multichannel home theater systems, but multichannel music is a dead issue. Stereo rules the roost, for going on 50 years.

Ten years ago it looked like stereo's days were numbered--the two new multichannel formats, SACD and DVD-Audio, were on track to be the next big things. Funny, it didn't work out that way. I cover the subject in detail in my "Whatever happened to 5.1-channel music?" article that appeared in the July issue of Stereophile magazine.

Obviously, 5.1-channel sound makes sense for movies and home theater, mostly because 5.1 was an outgrowth of theatrical film-sound technologies stretching all the way back to the 1950s.

Every attempt to bring surround music into the home without video has flopped, big time. Are you old enough to remember the rise and fall of quadraphonic in the 1970s? What was needed was a surround format that didn't require music lovers to invest in new playback gear. Surely such a format would prove the viability of music surround...wouldn't it?

DTS Entertainment introduced such a system in the late 1990s: the DTS Digital Surround CD. Those 20-bit discs were playable on any DVD or CD player--as long as it was connected to a digital receiver or surround processor. Tens of millions of homes were so equipped, but the Digital Surround CD barely made a ripple.

SACD and DVD-A were much better formats, but the record labels' half-hearted release schedules doomed the formats from the get-go. They never got their rosters of big-name artists to release 5.1 versions of their new titles. Surround releases were for the most part restricted to reissues of back-catalog titles. Most 5.1 mixes were pretty lame and failed to exploit surround's ability to create a more believable three-dimensional soundstage.

After I wrote the piece for Stereophile I received letters from classical musical lovers, chastising me for neglecting to mention that many small labels are still releasing 5.1 channel SACDs of classical music. That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that 5.1 rock or jazz releases are rare.

That said, if you have a hankering to hear surround-sound versions of music by Calexico, Elvis Costello, Eminem, Korn, Dave Matthews, My Morning Jacket, Radiohead, White Stripes, or ZZ Top, you can--all have released terrific-sounding concert videos on DVD-V and Blu-ray. Some of the Blu-rays feature surround mixes in lossless high-resolution Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio. As I said, I don't question the appeal of surround, so long as it's accompanied by video.

7/17/09 update: A lot of SACD fans point to sa-cd.net's listing of 5402 SACD titles as proof of the format's ongoing viability. Looking closer at the site's Latest News section proves the opposite. I note the press release for "SONY BMG Masterworks and Zenph Studios release Glenn Gould's Goldberg Variations (1955)" is dated March 20, 2007, and the "Genesis announce plans to re-issue 14 titles on SA-CD" release is dated November 7, 2006. That's the latest news? Yes, there are new classical music titles, but only the barest trickle of new, not reissue rock or jazz music. Where's the new music on SACD?

[tbsteph]

Sure I remember Quadraphonic. It died because the labels wanted to charge a lot more for such music compared to the stereo counterpart. Same can be said for more recent attempts a multichannel audio. Simple answer - bring the cost for multichannel audio down to stereo, and you have a winner.

[stepyourgameup]

I want a cd or sacd to sound as good as the music you hear in a movie. Music in movies always sound better than a cd.

[dayamax]

i agree with you.

[jw55]

Music in movies sounds better if you like bloated bass and equalization that removes any nuance that the performance might have originally had. The music in movies increasingly sounds like nothing that one would actually hear in real life. Unfortunately this type of sound is what people have been trained to like. You are right that it does make an impression that is immediately impressive, but that is all you are ever going to get from it. You will never have the joy of discovery that repeated listening to properly recorded music can give you. That being said I think that most of the time that sound is fine within the context of the movie, but it grows tiresome and unrewarding when made to stand on it's own for repeated listening. I put it in a class with over bright tv displays and too loud speakers in electronics showrooms. They get your attention, but they don't wear well.

[pubmat]

I haven't given up on SACD...don't forget that there is still two channel SACD if you don't like 5.1. I never latched onto 5.1 SACD or DVD-A, the weird surround sound mixes never suited my tastes, but 2.1 sounds fantastic. Anyone that has any audiophile pretenses at all HAS to have a SACD/DVD-A player.

[asilvera4]

pubmat share my opinion. 2.1 SACD sounds terrific and is sadly on its way to becoming yet another Sony-backed roadkill. Most audiophiles didn't gravitate to DVD-A or SACD for the multi-channel mixing, but rather as a source for the best digital sound from a consumer product. Physical media is starting its swan song, so why haven't services like HD Tracks gotten better (sorry, more mainstream) content? Apple's move up to 256K AAC is a nice effort, but at best it only brings online music on par with 25-year-old CD quality.

[burywil]

I am still buying SACD and DVD-Audio whenever I can find something worthwhile and wish for example that the new release of The Beatles discs were in hi res surround.
Personally having to switch on video to listen to audio is nuts.A disc like Brothers in Arms is just great but I fear attention to audio fidelity is vanishing with the i-pod generation and the MTV generation probably resulted in the need to include video with audio for the mass market.

I hope a niche market for formats like SACD will hold on [ like LP's] but we need major [good] releases of rock etc in addition to the significant release [many very good] of classical music and jazz discs.
This market will pay a premium but I agree the mass market will not;in fact it mostly expects it's music to be free now.

I guess that all Audio/Video discs will move to bluray in due course and with decent sound quality but for myself and much of the "niche" market it does not substitute for a high fidelity audio disc unless you can just play the music alone when you wish.
Have a David Gilmore Bluray and must admit I have not tried ti on my new OPPO player [without video on] to "see" if it works and at full high res.

I believe there is a place for hi rez discs even at a premium but they have to be good and music that market wants.Question is;is the market big enough ???Maybe,maybe not but seems to be for classical.

[kswa1987]

Personally, I listen to music mostly in my car, then on some logitech computer speakers, and finally through headphones.

Aside from the possibility of adding a center channel speaker to my Car or getting a nicer Logitech system for my computer (which I'm guessing would have to have an optical audio input to take advantage of 5.1 as I have a Core Duo macbook), I don't really have my primary listening stations set up to handle 5.1 audio.

On the other hand, I do have a component 5.1 home theater set up in my house with a dedicated Yamaha amplifier for watching movies.

Sound in movies is fantastic. But the catch is that I am sitting in one of four prime locations available in my house for DTS or Dolby playback maximization. Every time I want to listen to a CD (meaning music as I have no CDs) I don't want to have to go to my 5.1 setup to get a decent listening experience. I want my music to be available (in roughly the same quality) everywhere I go. My car with aftermarket audio and powered subwoofer is by far the best place for this, but I don't feel like I lose too much when I have to listen to my headphones on the go or from my Logitech speakers on my desk when I'm at my computer.

The bottom line is this: my HDTV is in one spot of my house and doesn't move. My 5.1 Component Home Theater is in that same room and doesn't move. When I want to sit down and watch a movie I have a great experience. I don't like watching movies on my laptop or ugh... my iPhone (how do people stand it?). Music is more of an on-the-go all-the-time experience, movies are different.

This is why I think anything beyond stereo is doomed from the get go.

and By the way, I still prefer the Beatles Mono recordings, so sometimes even just stereo is too much for when you want accurate representations of certain recordings.

[thing-fish]

I do love surround music, and my favorite surround releases (the Dark Side of the Moon SACD, Björk Surrounded boxed set, the Frank Zappa titles and maybe most of all The Soft Bulletin by The Flaming Lips) are real gems in my collection, really transformative listening experiences. I recommend them without reservation to anyone who enjoys those artists and has an appropriate setup.

Count me in as someone who really laments the demise of SACD and DVD-Audio for both their higher-resolution and especially their surround elements. I had really hoped that we'd see some Blu-Ray versions (perhaps as a deluxe edition bonus disc) of regular audio releases since Blu-Ray offers both the surround sound and lossless codecs, but it looks like it just isn't to be.

As it is, my favorite way to listen to music is with the "7 Channel Stereo" mode of my receiver turned on. I don't notice any artifacts or phasing and instead am bathed in very natural sound from all around me. It is SO engaging when you're sitting in the sweet spot and still sounds great if you're using the music as more of a background function. Got to have it all around you. :)

[soundman45]

I work everyday in the audio industry and it's a true pity that SACD and DVD/A have not succeded. They truely are a superior alternative to the standard compact disc. Blu Ray if supported could offer really high resolution audio but it seems like the pop/rock record divisions have just given up on hi res. Classical and jazz will occasionally be offered in these formats but like vinyl, it will always be a niche market. In order for multichannel audio to ever be successful the mass public will have to buy it. Lets face it, when digital and the internet came along, the cat was out of the bag. Record companies could no longer control distribution of their catalogs. Piracy is completely out of control. There is no reason for them to spend money to yet again re-release their archives. Multichannel will always be a part of the film industry because sound and picture go hand in hand and there is money to be made. As far as the mass audio industry I'm afraid it's game over. From other people in the industry I've talked to they don't see things changing anytime in the future so (enjoy your mp3's) folks, this is the state of the business.

[pubmat]

I don't think its as dire as you do soundman. There will always, as you say, be a niche for the higher res formats. I don't think the audiophile world will completely abandon them. DVD-A might be gone though, replaced by blu ray, but SACD lives on.

[soundman45]

The point I was trying to make about SACD and DVD/A releases is that you will probably never see your favorite pop/rock titles ( the bulk of what I own) in this formats. Whatever has been released up to this point is the bulk of what you'll find. The major record companies have pretty much abandoned these formats.

[MadLyb]

The problem is the amount of truly good content is lacking. I don't how many times I have bought a 5.1 mix thinking it would be awesome to only listen to it once because the results were either too bland or too bizarre.

Just like there are only a few engineers up to the task of mastering a recording, the same is true of 5.1 and if the labels will push for only qualified engineers to do this work, then perhaps we will get an increase in quality content.

With all this said, I think the industry missed it's opportunity in this area and they will need to reinvent themselves to sell the market.

[Renegade Knight]

From what I understand SACD is has better sound quality but in a format that is a PITA because of DRM issues.

Ease of use rules the roost.

[ematcion]

What's so hard about putting a disc into a player and pressing "play"?

[ematcion]

Steve,

You overlooked the fact that SACD originally started as a 2 channel stereo format; multi-channel surround sound on SACD was added later. You also overlooked the fact that many current top-of-the-line SACD players are 2 channel only. SACD is not ONLY about multi-channel surround sound....it's also about hi-rez 2 channel stereo reproduction as well. In fact, you can say SACD offers the potential to have the best possible digital 2 channel stereo reproduction.

Btw, if you check sa-cd.net and do the calculations, the numbers of new SACD titles released worldwide hasn't really decreased from last year, despite the worldwide economic collapse and the return of vinyl as an audiophile format.

[pubmat]

Very true ematcion. Not only that, who would have predicted that when DVD-A and SACD came out 10 years ago, and people were putting the final nails in vinyl's coffin, they would be talking about the wonders of vinyl and analog now?? In other words, SACD, along with blu ray will always be here, and will surely make a substantial comeback--as soon as people realize that vinyl is overrated.

[chefmitch]

You need to correct the sample rate you list for SACD:

"SACD was designed around Sony/Philips' Direct Stream Digital (DSD) codec, which stores music as 1-bit data sampled at an ultra-high 2.8224MHz. "

The correct sample rate is 2822.4MHz.

[Devhux]

Actually, the article is correct. SACD has a sample rate of 2822.4kHz, which is the same as 2.8224Mhz.

It was a bit confusing, because most people think of bit rate in terms of kHz when it comes to audio (regular audio discs are 44.1kHz for example).

[chefmitch]

@Devhux

Thanks for correcting me.

[NYCgoalie]

This is all the labels fault; not the consumers.

It wasn't the fact that people didn't want to buy Hi-res audio CD's. The labels were afraid that someone was going to come out with a portable codec (like .mp3) to support Hi-Res audio, thus creating even more songs being shared via Napster/Bittorrent/Limewire/Whatever. Since they couldn't agree on a viable DRM solution for this (on top of the fact that most DRM protocols have been broken at some point), they collectively nixed Hi-res CD's, unless of course the artist wanted it.

But then again, think about it....it cost a lot more to record/press/distribute a CD with Hi-Res audio. The record companies were already losing quite a bit of thier profits due to file sharing. They weren't about to lose even more once they put out Hi-Res CD's.

Had file sharing not come to the forefront as an issue, there's no doubt that they would have been far more SACD's released with the last 10 years. (Not that I know anything about file-sharing. That's very illegal and I would never DREAM of even doing such a thing).

[carlitos92]

No, actually it IS technically the consumers' fault. As a majority, they have spoken, and they have decided that these formats, no matter how superior, are to be relegated to a cult following.

The issue is that the mainstream market for audio content has untrained ears. They don't care about multichannel audio or sampling rate. On the contrary, by and large they have shown they are willing to buy 128 bitrate MP3s and load them on their portable music players and go from there. While it may seem a travesty to those of you with vacuum tube amplifiers and speakers costing more than most cars, this dumbed-down market is where the money is, and this is the market record companies see as worthy of their efforts.

What's more, as someone else alluded to, I can hit a button on my 5.1 receiver and achieve a number of similar soundstage effects from stereo content that may not be nearly as accurate as that of a 5.1 source, but are still interesting and "good enough."

"Good enough," as it applies to stereo recordings, pretty much sums it up.

[serious.fun]

Yes, it is unfortunate that SA-CD and DVD-A have failed as CD replacement(s) (as Cassette, arguably LP Records, 8-Track, 78 records, cylinders, etc. have failed). What's not to like about better sounding, more enveloping music?

Blame has to go to Sony for introducing SA-CD to compete with DVD-A at a time when consumers were discovering the joy of ripping CD and sharing their music with no physical medium (and no limited-lifespan spinning-disk player).

Disk formats may survive as niche media for a while, but high resolution and surround music are available for purchase and download today (hdtracks.com, linnrecords.com, and others), and various devices, home and portable, are available to play them (my phone has 16 GB of lossless FLAC music on it).

And the word Stereo does not mean Two. It is derived from the Greek Sterios, meaning Solid. Applied to audio, it means any acquisition/delivery format greater than one. You are building walls instead of breaking them with this continued use. And yes, the Mono Beatles' mixes are generally better than the Stereo, and a 5.1 system with a properly chosen and integrated Center Channel speaker is the best way to listen to any Mono source - Mono through two or more speakers is smeary and innnacurate - SA-CD and DVD-A (and lossless files) are a wonderful way to deliver these.

[poisonedragon]

I have a hard time getting behind a format where I have to turn on the TV to play music. Plus, how many DVD-As actually utilize 24/192 quality? Seemed pointless if labels weren't going to take advantage of the technology. I do keep an eye out for good bargains on SACDs and DVD-As, but I don' think any of us are holding our breath for mainstream releases.

[Tod Smith]

In the end Sony will kill the SACD. Blu-Ray will domainate!

[sstralo]

You've struck on the main problem of listening to music. People don't listen to music, it is background noise to whatever they do. Driving, sitting at their computer, walking, running, etc. Those of us that truly enjoy music and sit down to specifically listen to it, the way you watch your movies would, and have embraced anything that would bring a greater listening experience. However such a small group will not generate enough interest for the record companies to pursue any higher quality formats. There won't be any money in it. One possibility would be to have a third party create the higher quality releases the way that Mobile Fidelity did with their high quality vinyl pressings and then their gold CDs. Naturally they would be more expensive, due to smaller "pressings" (is that even the right terminology anymore?), but there are those of us that would embrace them for what they are, works of art, and well worth the cost.

[Vegascat]

The mix has to be done properly. I'd love to have Edgar Winters' "Frankenstein" in surround. I have an old LP surround version that can only be played in Stereo because I have no surround amp or phono cartridge anymore. It was fun to listen to. I just purchased E. Power Biggs? (SACD) playing four organs in a cathedral (originally done for LP surround). It's nice to hear the music filling the room as though you were actually in the cathedral. They placed the organs sonically in relation to their position in the cathedral.
I read somewhere that the ?masses? don?t care about quality, but quantity/portability. Everyone seems to agree vinyl has the best sound overall, CDs are okay, MP3?s are ?horrible?, and DVD-Audio/SACD are the very best of the digital versions.
If I had the money, I would own the $200,000 turntable + pre-amp, along with the gee-whiz amps, speakers, and $300/foot silver wire to connect them all; not to mention the $4,000 record cleaning machine.

[jancawa55]

On my desktop computer I have been using the same 2 JBL speakers that came with a Compaq computer bought in 1999. They still work great and I don't know what I would do with a 5.1 or 7.1 set of speakers on the computer. Still using my Bose 3.2.1 for the HDTV and that is quite good enough too.

[krosafcheg]

At least hybrid SACDs are backward compatible with CD players and hence, a stereo layer is always provided. I can tell you the reasons DVD-Audio failed:
* Not backward-compatible w/huge installed base of DVD-Video players!
* Requires a multichannel home theater setup to hear ANYTHING AUDIO AT ALL!
* No video content is typically provided, yet video hookup is still REQUIRED to navigate discs!
* Based on ITU stds. intended for recording studios: 5.0 (no LFE/subwoofer channel at all!) full-range speakers, all at the same height, placed equidistant from the listening sweet spot, an incongruous standard completely impractical for and incompatible with all existing home theaters!

[pjk0]

I'm not a TV watcher in general, but I have owned both Pioneer and Denon "Universal" CD/DVD/DVD-A/SACD players that did not require the TV to be on in order to do basic disc navigation. (ie play, stop, pause, search, track forward/reverse)