Why not SACD?

The transfer on the new CD (and the 24/96 stereo version on the new DVD) is in my humble opinion the best transfer of the master tape that I created in 1970. It was done by Steve Hall. We were in communication for the whole mastering process for the surround. I’m not sure how much was done if at all to my stereo master. It didn’t really need much.

Bit perfect 24/96 PCM is my gold standard, and what I work in. Anything made from that was a mastering job and the decision of the record company, but I favor DVD-A anyway, with a dts backup track.

It appears at this time that the SACD market has diminished, and since it was such a closed system and the music industry has gone over to a more do-it-yourself model that any DSD recording tools are too pricey when one gets into multiple tracks. The Meridian lossless compression works well and sounds great.

I have a Pioneer DVD player from 2004 that plays “everything” including SACD (which is what I think you are referring to when you mention DAD. So I’ve played a couple of SACDs but was generally put off by the format for a number of reasons. Anyway, I had to play ball with the record company. One of the few times I’ve agreed with a record company, in this case WB/Rhino.

• I heard some shootouts comparing against DVD-A in 2003 and 4 when there were Surround conferences (discontinued in 2005) but wasn’t convinced.

• There was a technical paper delivered that revealed some high frequency noise problems that Sony wasn’t talking about. The guy put a scope on the signal output of a SACD player and found some strange noise artifacts, even with the severe noise shaping and filtering required ( another minus in my opinion ).

• At the time of my mixing of IICORMN, there was not a lot of internal industry movement toward SACD except for CBS records pushing for it with releasing huge catalogs in SACD only and basically ignoring the Surround possibilities. Did you know that Sony paid Universal 40 million dollars to release a good part of their recent catalog in SACD (but no surround) ??

• From a content creation standpoint, a nightmare. There was no way to make test discs unless you went to pressings and at the time no one-off or standalone creator - by design, a lame attempt at copy protection. Also the format offered little in multimedia addons and definitely wouldn’t play in any computer - special hardware for the DVD player that wouldn’t be made available.

• For me, a Pro-Tools HD owner and user, SACD was never an option at the editing level. There was only one DAW on the market that even purported to be able to do it was SADiE and it was only able to work with 8 tracks. Client confirmation copies in SACD would have been out of the question. It was just not in my workflow or pocketbook to work with this format natively.

• To cover their ass, the record companies like to have options. With DVD, we had not only the DVD-A tracks, but the dTs tracks as well. Then it can play surround practically anywhere there’s a home theater. And any video or slideshow or added stuff for the customer.

• SACD releases have the ability for surround, but most of the releases on SACD are plain stereo. I still beat the drumbeat of Surround, but mostly to deaf ears. Most people think surround is just a bunch of fake ambiance in the rear speakers swirling around, because 70% of the crap people hear as “5.1 surround” is just synthesized from two tracks by a plugin or a box.

A great opportunity is being missed, because very few people have heard good surround at all. Not just my projects in surround (I also did “Another Stoney Evening” in surround for DTS) but the Steely Dan remixes by Elliot Schiner (perhaps the best and most experience surround mixer on earth) and others — DTS had signed Pink Floyd and a Beatles deal was in the works in 2004 but they never happened. But there’s still a plethora of music that’s been mixed for the medium.