In fact, it seems like the current trend in music is towards lower quality online downloads (I'm looking at you, iTunes). So what happened? As always, I have a tale to tell, but I must warn you, dear reader-it is truly heart-wrenching. It involves two competing HD audio formats that arrived about the same time as DVDs, and they called themselves DVD-Audio (DVD-A) and Super Audio CD (SACD).
Now I wouldn't be too surprised if the vast majority of you have never heard of these formats. Over the course of their existence, they have been waging a war that has prevented either from becoming a mainstream success. The main benefit of both these formats is that they are audio recordings of extraordinarily high quality. They are both significant leaps ahead of what CDs can offer.
A standard CD is encoded at 16-bit/44.1khz audio with two channels (left and right) for stereo. In comparison, the quality of a typical DVD-audio or SACD recording is 24-bit/96khz with 5.1 audio channels. While these numbers may seem like gibberish, trust me when I say that both DVD-A and SACD offer a literal night-and-day improvement over CDs. The difference is as shocking as that between standard definition and HD video.
So with an obvious advantage in quality, what prevented DVD-A and SACD from finding mainstream success? Well, for one thing, the fact that there are two HD audio formats out there doesn't help at all, especially when they both do practically the same thing. Consumers generally loathe to pick sides in a format war where the superior option hasn't been manifestly determined.
This situation is eerily similar to the eventual Blu-ray and HD-DVD war we'll be seeing later this year. That SACD is backed by Sony, who stubbornly holds onto that format as they do to Blu-ray, makes this situation even more prescient.
In addition to the confusing choice in formats, it's also somewhat difficult to buy the equipment necessary for either one. For example, the only way to play SACD discs is with a CD or DVD player that has SACD support-which are generally very expensive. Likewise, playing DVD-A involves having a DVD player that supports it, or a computer with at least a Creative Audigy 2 card. Both formats sound best with surround-sound setups, a concept which still confuses consumers when it comes to movie DVDs. Some DVD players support both, but they are generally doubly expensive.
Both formats also utilize extensive encryption and copy protection, which in turn makes their hardware more expensive and cumbersome than it should be. The encryption for SACDs is so heavy-duty it still isn't possible to play those discs on computers, something which has become a bit of a trend these past few years. While it is possible to play DVD-A on PCs, it requires a certain type of sound card-exactly the sort of limitation that keeps away the general consumer. These copy protection schemes also prevent users from ripping their discs for use on their portable digital audio players, a prohibition that may be the final death knell for SACD and DVD-A.
In the end, we can attribute the failure of both DVD-A and SACD to stubborn corporations who can't agree on a unified HD format, confusing and expensive hardware and overbearing copy protection that restricts the way we can use our legally purchased media. Sound familiar? As I said before, it seems like the upcoming Blu-ray and HD-DVD formats are heading down the same path. What will happen? It's anyone's guess.
As for the future of HD audio, there is a newer format called "Dualdisc" which is a double-sided disc that offers standard CD Audio on one side and DVD content on the other. The DVD content is sometimes equivalent to DVD-A quality, and at other times it's just the equivalent of DVD special features. Despite its deficiencies, Dualdisc is garnering more support from the recording studios than was ever given to SACD and DVD-A. Perhaps HD audio isn't a complete bust just yet.