SACD/DVD-A- Left at the Gate?

[Leeway]

See link for article from 1/20/04 Washington Post on how both DVD-A and SACD have been ynable to make any inroads in CD sales-- and how CD, SACD, and DVD-A might all be threatened by the IPOD, MP3 etc trend.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30490-2004Jan19.html

[GA Russell]

Thanks for the heads up, Leeway!

I have one of each. I play the DVD-A on my computer.

I don't believe the author when he says the price is comparable to CDs. I think Borders charges about five dollars more, or about 33%.

I don't consider mp3 downloading to be competition for these new formats. They offer superior quality, while mp3 offers inferior sound.

CDs did not become popular in the marketplace. The record cos. halted their policy to take back unsold vinyl product, so the retailers quit carrying LPs. I bought my first CD player about two weeks after I went into a store and saw it had no LPs.

The record cos. could do the same with CDs if they wanted to. Since SACD players play CDs, and SACD hybrids will play on a CD player, I expect the SACD hybrid to win out over the DVD-A.

It's my impression that few people have their DVD player hooked up to speakers comparable to their stereo system. I believe that even the typical surround sound system is multiple mediocre speakers. You may know better about that than I do. But if I'm right, who at this point is going to pay a premium to play his new record on his computer or on his TV?

[Claude]

Originally posted by GA Russell
CDs did not become popular in the marketplace. The record cos. halted their policy to take back unsold vinyl product, so the retailers quit carrying LPs. I bought my first CD player about two weeks after I went into a store and saw it had no LPs.

The record cos. could do the same with CDs if they wanted to. Since SACD players play CDs, and SACD hybrids will play on a CD player, I expect the SACD hybrid to win out over the DVD-A.

That's not how I recall the situation in the 80's. CDs were successful on their own, not so much because of better sound, but because of the ease of use and durability. People bought CDs because they liked this revolutionary new format, not because LPs became unavailable. That was only much later, when the majority of consumers had already made the switch to CD.

The problem of SACD and DVD-A is that it is not a revolutionary format, it offers no advantage to users who only listen to music without caring for the highest quality or multichannel sound.

The industry could indeed simply replace CDs by downward-compatible hybrid SACDs, but I guess they won't do this because of higher production costs. Their objective was to charge more for a superior format, as it happened with CDs, which were much higher priced than LPs and stayed on this level (although not in real terms when taking into account inflation). But currently only audiophiles will accept to pay more for a SACD or DVD-A. "Kind of blue" costs $19 on SACD and $9 on CD (which sounds 95% as good), so the decision is easy for the non-audiophile listener.

[Bev Stapleton]

Very true, Claude.

I flipped to CD very quickly after it came in because it released me from the nightmare of bad vinyl pressings - warps, clicks, off-centre pressed discs. It took all the pain out of the first listening to the disc.

As a non-audiophile I am delighted with the sound of CD and have no interest in an improved format.

It has always struck me that the whole SACD - DVD-A thing had two driving forces:

a) audiophiles who really do care about getting even better sound.

b) a myth amongst the recording business that a new format is required every decade or so - 78s, LPs, cassettes, 8 Track, CDs, DAT. What they forgot was that all these formats, however advanced in technological terms, did not catch on. Anyone remember quadrophonic!!!

DVD video has been a huge success because it has upgraded from video-tape in a substantial way. For the bulk of listeners the new audio formats are just not worth the extra outlay.

[GA Russell]

Apparently the European experience regarding the change to CDs differed from the American. What I explained occurred in 1988, and was explained to me by a record store manager.

When the record cos. decided that they would no longer accept vinyl returns but would continue to accept CD returns, the retailers had no choice. It was not a consumer-driven event.

[Bev Stapleton]

The only thing that slowed the adoption of CD in the UK was the lack of material on CD. Classical music switched to CD very quickly and thus built up a CD catalogue quickly too - I consequently spent most of the 80s building that side of my interests. Had the facilities been available to do the same in rock outside the big hitters I suspect it would have taken over as quickly as DVD has.

From what I'm aware SACD etc is making little impact in any of the genres.

I actually find it impossible to think of anything more I require a recording medium to do than what the CD can do. Apart, perhaps, from a medium that would allow record companies very cheaply (from their point of view) to put out the material in the vaults that it seems uneconomic to release at present. I suspect in the long run there might be some possibility there of buying a high quality download of, say, Tubby Hayes 'Mexican Green' thereby eliminating the need of the company to press, package, distribute or promote it. They could still charge me the same price!!!

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Since I was intimately involved in the early days of CD, I can attest that in the US, the change happened around 1983-84 and it was very abrupt. It was as if one day there were LPs and cassettes and the next, there were CDs and CDs.

SACDs and DVD-Audio discs may never "make it" in a commercial sense, but to my ears, both are a step up the audio chain. I tend to prefer SACD as it seems to have smoother bass but it may also be the fact that it's a "close & play" format whereas DVD-A usually requires some menu interaction. FWIW, I still have yet to try either of these hi-rez formats in multi-channel. Maybe when I do, one of them may get the nod.

Later,
Kevin

[Claude]

To me, the oddest thing about the introduction of SACD is the fact that some of the big labels are not trying to build a repertoire that is as broad as possible, but are reissueing many (sometimes all) albums of one single artist at the same time:

Rolling Stones (16 ABKO titles)
Bob Dylan (17 albums)
The Police (7)
Peter Gabriel (11)
Oscar Peterson (6 MPS albums)

What do they expect from this? Only a few die-hard fans will get ALL of those discs again, but most record buyers will only get one or two from each artist, when they would have bought more SACDs if the musical selection was broader.

[Stefan]

I'm all for SACDs, but the prices are an issue with me, especially since places like cduniverse doesn't seem to have a discount on the new releases like they did last year (i.e. the new batch of Fantasy reissues). Sometimes I will go into a brick and mortar store, just to see what they have, and often I find more DVD-As than SACDs. And titles that I would like to get (particularly some Sony titles from Weather Report and Herbie Hancock) seem to have vanished -- like OOP! I am content with the sound quality, but I didn't upgrade my player just to gain a new format that still hasn't caught on.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Stefan, are you still looking for that SACD of Weather Report's "Heavy Weather". I sent you a PM on that a while back but never heard back. Did the PM arrive?

Kevin

[Tenorman]

SACD and DVD-A (whatever happened to HDCD??) are all about quality. The vast majority of the population are listening to their music on portables, boom boxes and entry point Hi-Fi and Mini/Midi sets. While these give satisfactory sound in their own way, very few of the people in that population set will upgrade to SACD, just for an increase in Sound Quality.

I think that the sensible way to do it would have been to make all new releases on SACD, and then gradually release back catalogue the same way.

Is SACD or DVD-A ever going to get down to the mass-produced end of the hardware market. If it does and the record companies give the average consumer a choice of paying an extra couple of quid for SACD software, I think most will go for the cheaper CD.

SACD and DVD-A are not yet (ever?) offering enough to the man in the street to persuade him that it worth while paying extra, both for hardware and software

[Bev Stapleton]

Originally posted by Tenorman
SACD and DVD-A (whatever happened to HDCD??) are all about quality.

Well they're about audio quality.

It's not just the mass market that is disinterested. There are plenty of musical obsessives who don't feel the upgrade in sound is that vital to their enjoyment.

[Tenorman]

Agreed, but the record companies make their money from the majorities, which was why I emphasised that side of things.

Oh and I am one of the Hi-Fi buffs who investigated it, and found that at my budget limit for a deck, SACD gave a marginal improvement on some discs, but was down on a lot of CDs compared with a CD only deck at the same price. With around 1500 CDs in my collection, guess which way I jumped?:D

[JPW]

Obsessive, moi ;) I also have about 1,500 CDs and from what I have heard so far SACD has little or nothing to offer me - at least at any kind of a price I'd be willing to pay.
I think the days of silver spinning discs are numbered - I get most of my jazz these days on those large black CDs :D

[shawn·m]

I don’t believe sound quality alone is a big enough issue to move SACD into mass-market production, either. But what if quality were matched with quantity?

There seems to be some disagreement as to how much music an SACD hybrid can actually hold. At one extreme, I’ve read of an upward capacity of four hours of two-channel playback is possible. Assuming this is true (or something like it), what if the Ellington Webster/Blanton band’s entire output were available on one disk for about the price of a CD? All of Tina Brooks’ leader dates?

Other things frustrate those who already bought into the system: Crest-produced SACDs that, over time, develop cracks around the spindle hole; The trend towards massive dynamic-range compression that began in the mid-90s is also beginning to show up in SACDs (Blue Trane for example); the lack of titles, and rumors of titles that were in active production, though not released, being put on hold; and the inability to make perfect digital copies (IMO BFD). Yes, SACD does have its problems.

Speaking only for myself, I wouldn’t have missed SACD for the world and I think it’ll be around for a while yet –if only to satisfy a niche market. Nor am I one of those folks who pines for the death of CD. If you approach SACD from the standpoint of simply augmenting an existing CD/LP collection, not replacing it, then you can’t really go wrong.

[Claude]

A hybrid SACD can only hold 80 minutes, simply because the CD layer has to be compatible with the CD standard.
The SACD layer can hold much more. But hybrid SACDs have become the standard for the moment, compatibility being an important issue.

Anyway, the price of the music is not about the number of discs. Manufacturing costs represent less than 10% of the price. Don't imagine the complete Beatles output being sold for $20, just because a new technology makes it possible to fit it on one disc. Even the russian pirate webstores selling MP3-CDs charge more. ~pimp:

[shawn·m]

Fair points there, Claude. As I said, there does seem to be disagreement on SACD’s ultimate storage capacity…

Since hybrid SACD technology is based on existing dual-layer DVD video, there’s no insurmountable reason hybrid’s second layer could not be given over to DSD instead of PCM. What labels might charge for such a product is, of course, a matter of speculation, too. My point being, if the industry were interested in broadening SACD’s acceptance, there just might be a way to get it done.

[porcy 62]

IMO sacd are useless.
The sound quality of a player rely on a lot of factors, d/a converters, quality of electronic component (resistors, capacitors, etc.) construction quality, etc.
A universal player,(cd, dvd, sacd, mp3) that audio companies push as a solution for format war, is more expensive to built.
Most audiophiles out there spent thousands bucks for good sounding cd player, they should spend more for a real better sounding sacd/universal player.
And what about the software?
I bought Kind of Blue in vinyl 25 years ago, then I bought the cd, then the remastered cd, should I buy the Sacd now?
The new realeases are on cd (just have a look at AAJ).
My son (the new market for music companies) buy only virgin cds to burn, or spend a lot of time downloding, he did not care about sound quality.

BTW I bought Kind of Blue on 200 grams Virgin Vinyl and sold the cd and the remastered cd and I felt almost happy as 25 years ago

[Greg]

Totally gone from this conversation is the fact that the driving force behind the commercialization of SACD was the imminent piratability of CD--the total lack of copy protection, and mass piracy in places such as Asia and Eastern Europe. The article alludes to it as the driving force that's pushing record companies to find a new technology.

Hybrid SACDs are attractive to record labels because they offer the potential for transparent adoption. Folks buying the ABKCO Stones or the Columbia Dylan remasters are buying SACDs whether they know it or not. Should the record labels decide to push hard toward replacing CD with SACD, they have a model to do this.

Meanwhile, those of us who care about sound quality are buying remasters anyway. Whether it's vinyl, CD, SACD, DVD-A. You're lying if you tell me you're not interested in getting the best sound for your buck.

Therefore, from day one, it occurs to me that SACD, like no other format, is something consumers, record labels and electronics manufaturers can agree to pursue. A true win/win. Only why is there so much negativity surrounding it? Ignorance, I guess--some of which is blatantly on display at several points in this thread.

[shawn·m]

Originally posted by Greg
Whether it's vinyl, CD, SACD, DVD-A. You're lying if you tell me you're not interested in getting the best sound for your buck.

Greg,

A question for you (I don’t have the answer): Did SACD compatible player sales noticeably increase after the release of the Stones’ hybrids?

I assume the Stones sold/sell reasonably well, and loads of music lovers now have SACD software on their shelves. If the answer is “no,” then it suggests folks want the latest CD re-masters, but draw the line at improved sound quality when the price is a new system that doesn’t have popular acceptance.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Originally posted by shawn-m
I assume the Stones sold/sell reasonably well, and loads of music lovers now have SACD software on their shelves. If the answer is “no,” then it suggests folks want the latest CD re-masters, but draw the line at improved sound quality when the price is a new system that doesn’t have popular acceptance.

I'm not Greg, but I imagine he'll chime in with something, but I have to disagree with this equation. Simply buying a few Stones SACDs is not going to make someone dump a perfectly good CD player to hear that "new" (to the owner) layer. However, I'd be willing to bet that anyone who's into the Stones and has these hybrids and finds themselves needing a new player, will probably buy one with SACD capability.

Quite honestly, anyone buying a new player today who doesn't get a multi-format machine is crazy. They are missing a golden opportunity to get great musical playback capability. In the case if hybrids like the Stones discs, you get this extra material for "free"... it's already there.

Later,
Kevin

[shawn·m]

Originally posted by Kevin Bresnahan
Quite honestly, anyone buying a new player today who doesn't get a multi-format machine is crazy. They are missing a golden opportunity to get great musical playback capability. In the case if hybrids like the Stones discs, you get this extra material for "free"... it's already there.

Later,
Kevin

Couldn’t agreed more. Although the matter of multi-compatible machines’ ability to perform equally well in each format will, I expect, remain an issue that won’t go away anytime soon.

Again, the point I’m trying to make is that SACD isn’t likely to become a popular format unless it offers something of immediate value to consumers (besides improved sound) that can’t be had elsewhere. Let’s disregard the comparative lack of titles, production problems, etc. for the moment. Will universal players turn the tide? Maybe, and maybe not. Yes, it removes an element of risk from buying into SACD, but it does the same for the competing DVD-A format. From a marketing standpoint, I suspect DVD-A has the most to gain from such players (format recognition).

Aside from the arguable possibility of SACD offering the complete Webster/Blanton on one disk at a decent price, what might turn SACD into a popular medium? Well, if artists and musicians were to release titles exclusive to SACD (and without a hybrid layer) that might do the trick.

Something needs to happen before SACD is anything but a niche market.

[porcy 62]

Originally posted by Greg


Therefore, from day one, it occurs to me that SACD, like no other format, is something consumers, record labels and electronics manufaturers can agree to pursue. A true win/win. Only why is there so much negativity surrounding it? Ignorance, I guess--some of which is blatantly on display at several points in this thread.

Greg,
I wasn't telling Sacd is bad, I intended it came too late for the music business.
IMO the future of business is on the Web (like the recent Peter Gabriel/Brian Eno joint venture shows).
Musicians loves a way to bypass the music industry for a lot of reasons.
Young people, like my son, are Mp3 oriented (more music easy to carry with), I love the Ipod too, for example for travelling.
Therefore Hybrid Sacds (the market's trend) are not copy protected, not the Stones or Dylan's one.
Dowloading is cheaper for companies too.
About the sound quality, in my experience good Vinyl is still superior.
Sacd will be a niche as Lp

[JPW]

SACD and DVDA are dead ends and are going the way of Betamax.
As "audiophile" formats they are flawed (and most "audiophiles" prefer vinyl anyway), and to mainstream consumers who increasingly have one box for computing / audio / video, these are simply old fashioned expensive, inconvenient silver disc spinners.
The mainstream future is downladable / streaming media. Audiophiles meanwhile will continue to return in droves to the vinyl niche.
I was buying vinyl at Audiounion in Shinjuku last night (NOS limited edition Toshiba-EMI pressings of Out to Lunch, Freddie Hubbard's "Here to Stay" and Introducing Johnny Griffin amongst others) and saw that the SACD section has indeed grown since the last time I was down in the CD area of the store. SACD now has a bit more shelf space than Tzadik ;) but seems to be filled mostly with Kind of Blue and Waltz for Debbie.

[Tenorman]

When I was looking for a new deck, I went round 3 of the specialist Hi-Fi dealers in London, looking for opinions on SACD. All three said the same thing. Yes, SACD was better, but not dramatically so. One dealer even set up the following test of the same piece of classical music (Brandenburg Concerto) on CD SACD and Vinyl (Audiophile 180 gram)

A Sony SACD player at £2000
A Music Fidelity CD player at £1000
A Michell Orbe record deck at around £1800

I placed them as 1. Vinyl, 2 SACD and 3. CD

However, when the CD was played on the SACD deck, it sounded worse than the MF CD deck. ( marginally and open to argument)

With the number of CDs I have, I was not going to spend twice the amount to get SACD compatibility.

In the UK, there is very little in the way of SACD Jazz. Almost everything I have seen to date, I either have on CD or LP or don't want.

So no contest - I bought the MF CD player

CDs had the advatage over LPs of 80 minutes non stop and near indestructibility coupled with low maintenance hardware. The record industry had been reducing the quality of their vinyl for a few years, so it was easy to make it seem that CDs were substantially better, and yes, I bought the story as well.

SACD does not have that "Hey Wow" improvement factor, and there is no advantage in the hardware or damage resistance of the software. In a staright contest, it does not have what it takes. You will know if SACD is going to take over when it starts to appear on the low end stacking systems and portables

[Greg]

Tenorman said:
With the number of CDs I have, I was not going to spend twice the amount to get SACD compatibility.

Why should the number of CDs you have influence your decision about SACD capability one way or the other? All SACD players play CD.

SACD does not have that "Hey Wow" improvement factor,

On my system with the SCD-1, it definitely has the wow improvement factor. Even poor SACDs go beyond what excellent CDs can provide in many aspects of sound reproduction.

In a staright contest, it does not have what it takes.

I couldn't disagree more, and I can guarantee I've listened to more SACDs than you and compared them closely to corresponding CDs and vinyl. SACD has advantages that go beyond other formats. Good vinyl beats SACD, but there is a lot more bad vinyl than good vinyl out there.

You will know if SACD is going to take over when it starts to appear on the low end stacking systems and portables

You mean like these?
http://interprod5.imgusa.com/son-637/products_sub_page.asp?pProductCategoryId=3

JPW said:
As "audiophile" formats they are flawed (and most "audiophiles" prefer vinyl anyway), <<

All formats are "flawed", including vinyl. Some would say ESPECIALLY vinyl.

[QUOTE]The mainstream future is downladable / streaming media.

Yes, but how will record labels make enough money off these piracy-prone formats to satisfy their greed?

Audiophiles meanwhile will continue to return in droves to the vinyl niche.

Audiophiles never left their vinyl niche. But try to find a first pressing of Sarah Vaughan and Clifford brown in decent shape for less than a fortune. Now try to find the comparable-sounding SACD version for $15.99 at your local best buy, and tell me where you have more luck and satisfaction.

SACD now has a bit more shelf space than Tzadik but seems to be filled mostly with Kind of Blue and Waltz for Debbie.

You should check more often. Those two are old news.

porcy 62 said:
IMO the future of business is on the Web (like the recent Peter Gabriel/Brian Eno joint venture shows). Musicians loves a way to bypass the music industry for a lot of reasons.

Well this may work fine for a big name like Peter Gabriel who owes his name recognition and everything he has to the music idustry. But for most artists, record labels play an important role in getting their music in the hands of afficianados who want to hear it, and creating a fan base.

Young people, like my son, are Mp3 oriented (more music easy to carry with), I love the Ipod too, for example for travelling.

How much profit has the record industry gleaned from consumers like your son? Very little, if any.

Therefore Hybrid Sacds (the market's trend) are not copy protected, not the Stones or Dylan's one.

No, they're not. But single-layer SACDs are--at least in terms of a digital stream that can be used to mass-pirate the titles. If the record labels were to flood the market with enough key catalog segments like the ABKCO Stones or Columbia Dylan hybrids, a point would be reached where CDs, CD layers (on hybrids) and CD players and burners could be yanked from the market, helping to return some semblance to digital copy protection back to music content.

About the sound quality, in my experience good Vinyl is still superior.

I agree. The problem is there is a lot more bad vinyl than good vinyl out there. And bad vinyl sounds like crap. Much worse than the worst SACD in my collection. I roll the dice every time I buy vinyl, and sometimes I spend just as much as I spend on an SACD for a product I don't like as much.

Sacd will be a niche as Lp

Probably correct, and if so it is one of the major lost opportunities in digital audio for both consumers and the record labels.

shawn-m said:
SACD isn’t likely to become a popular format unless it offers something of immediate value to consumers (besides improved sound) that can’t be had elsewhere.

If hybrid SACDs could replace CDs, it wouldn't matter. Customers would buy it because that's what's available.

Let’s disregard the comparative lack of titles, production problems, etc. for the moment. Will universal players turn the tide? Maybe, and maybe not.

No, DEFINITELY not. The only thing that will "turn the tide" is a flood of hybrid SACD titles.

Aside from the arguable possibility of SACD offering the complete Webster/Blanton on one disk at a decent price, what might turn SACD into a popular medium? Well, if artists and musicians were to release titles exclusive to SACD (and without a hybrid layer) that might do the trick.

Why is it so hard for you to see the point? Single inventory SACDs sell, because there are NO OTHER VERSIONS OF THE TITLE. Let's say, for example, that Blue Note was really behind SACD. Instead of the joke of a batch they released as after-the-fact token gestures, let's say they had made the Norah Jones available on a hybrid SACD from day one of its release. Millions of people would then be buying the hybrid SACD, even if they didn't know what SACD is. This is a very simple concept. Do you understand, yet?

Something needs to happen before SACD is anything but a niche market.

A lot needs to happen. The labels need to unify and commit to hybrid SACD, and aggressively move forward.

I assume the Stones sold/sell reasonably well, and loads of music lovers now have SACD software on their shelves.

Correct.

If the answer is “no,” then it suggests folks want the latest CD re-masters, but draw the line at improved sound quality when the price is a new system that doesn’t have popular acceptance.

you're forgetting that these discs cost the same as CDs and play on any disc machine. Stones fans who don't care a thing about SACD are buying them. All of which proves the fact that the hybrid model can be used for transparent adoption of the SACD format.

[JPW]

Originally posted by Greg
On my system with the SCD-1, it definitely has the wow improvement factor. Even poor SACDs go beyond what excellent CDs can provide in many aspects of sound reproduction.
In what areas exactly? Air, space, slam? Personally I couldn't care less about any of those (which is lucky as most of the music I listen to has none of the above). As far as I'm concerned these elements are basically production "sweetners" inserted for extra audiophile appeal. Most people listening on their lo-fi never hear any of this anyway.


Yes, but how will record labels make enough money off these piracy-prone formats to satisfy their greed?
Easy. They adapt or die. iTunes shows the way forward. What is stopping the record companies is inertia and fear. They would love business to go on as usual, but it won't. The market has changed and they must follow or die.
Also, most people wnat to make copies of their faveourite music for their iPod. The perceived inability to do this off of SACD is another nail in its coffin.

But try to find a first pressing of Sarah Vaughan and Clifford brown in decent shape for less than a fortune. Now try to find the comparable-sounding SACD version for $15.99 at your local best buy, and tell me where you have more luck and satisfaction.
I wouldn't claim vinyl as the format of the future. But it is a viable niche market - as the large number of audiophile pressings attests.
Non-fans couldn't give a t*ss about sound quality. Which is sad, but has generally been the case historically.
In what is probably the biggest jazz market in the world, I can find excellent Sarah Vaughn & Clifford Brown pressings for about that or less, if I look hard. These are not much harder to find than SACDs...
SACD production is an expensive process. Recordings are selected to appeal to a particular niche market and reflect certain priorities. CD and vinyl OTOH reflect pretty much everything that has been recorded over the last 100 years - good or bad.
This in turn highlights a fundamental weakness of the new format. CD, regardless of its quality, offered a new and convenient alternative. SACD does not. In fact it is far less convenient than other newer formats.

You should check more often. Those two are old news.
erm, I did check. Yesterday. At one of Tokyo's leading jazz specialist shops.
Anyway, it's good that SACD has its defenders. I may come across as anti-SACD. I'm not. It's simply that SACD's time has already passed.
I'm not in the market for a new CD - my battleship TEAC will last for a good few years.

[shawn·m]

Originally posted by Greg
If hybrid SACDs could replace CDs, it wouldn't matter. Customers would buy it because that's what's available.

Since SACD is not in a position to compete against CD’s popularity, it does matter.

Originally posted by Greg
Why is it so hard for you to see the point? Single inventory SACDs sell, because there are NO OTHER VERSIONS OF THE TITLE. Let's say, for example, that Blue Note was really behind SACD. Instead of the joke of a batch they released as after-the-fact token gestures, let's say they had made the Norah Jones available on a hybrid SACD from day one of its release. Millions of people would then be buying the hybrid SACD, even if they didn't know what SACD is. This is a very simple concept. Do you understand, yet?

Though back-catalogs help labels stay in business, it’s new “hot” material they seek and promote for its profit potential; Blue Note & Nora Jones, Verve & Diana Krall, Atlantic & Kamikaze, Mercury Nashville & Shania Twain. New material released by hot/popular artists will push people to investigate SACD only if it is exclusive to SACD and can’t be had by any other means. This is also where successful copy protection stands to earn its keep.

Will SACD become a popular format because people buy Stones CDs without knowing or caring about the SACD layer? Will people buy universal players and suddenly discover the benefits of SACDs they’ve had on their shelves for weeks, months or years? Maybe, but I doubt to the tune of overthrowing CD.

Originally posted by Greg
you're forgetting that these discs cost the same as CDs and play on any disc machine. Stones fans who don't care a thing about SACD are buying them. All of which proves the fact that the hybrid model can be used for transparent adoption of the SACD format.

It can also be said that hybrids subsidize a format the vast majority are not interested in. But that’s OK, just as Nora subsidizes a Jackie McLean re-issue, I’m happy the Stones hybrids may allow me to buy some SACDs I’m interested in.

[Tenorman]

Greg,
I have a large number of CDs A £2000 Sony SACD player did not reproduce the one I brought along as well as the £1000 CD player I ultimately bought.

I went round two chain record shops and two specialist Jazz shops last Saturday. The SACDs on offer were minimal.

So, having listened to SACD and CD in more than one Hi-Fi, and only hearing a marginal improvement between SACD and CD, and hearing a poorer quality when the SACD deck plays standard CDs, I think my decision is both obvious and logical.

Why pay twice the price for a source which is going to make my existing CD collection sound worse, when there is little in the way of software to be found in London, that I would want to buy, to get a small improvement in quality.

As I said the decision to go for the £1000 CD player rather than the £2000 SACD player was a no-contest decision. I can now go and buy another 100 or so CDs with the money I have saved

[Claude]

Originally posted by Greg
On my system with the SCD-1, it definitely has the wow improvement factor. Even poor SACDs go beyond what excellent CDs can provide in many aspects of sound reproduction.[/B]

In that case, I would worry about the CD reproduction capacities of the player.

[Greg]

JPW said:
In what areas exactly? Air, space, slam?

I would say SACD improves reproduction in changes of tone and level more convincingly and naturally. It improves resolution of large ensemble macrodynamics down to single-instrument or single-vocal microdynamics. It just makes the musicians more present, more vibrant, more dynamic. . .and you can't tell me that isn't appealing.

Personally I couldn't care less about any of those (which is lucky as most of the music I listen to has none of the above).

Try explaining colors to a blind man sometime.

Easy. They adapt or die.

Well that's a nonanswer. They can't adapt to something not profitable for them.

iTunes shows the way forward. What is stopping the record companies is inertia and fear. They would love business to go on as usual, but it won't. The market has changed and they must follow or die.

Are you suggesting record labels become online software companies, chuck their A&R and marketing departments, and compete with companies like Apple, Microsoft and Napster that are already way ahead of them in providing software?

Also, most people wnat to make copies of their faveourite music for their iPod. The perceived inability to do this off of SACD is another nail in its coffin.

Here's a novel concept: most people want to LISTEN to music. Not download it, not upload it, not copy it, not burn it, not compress it, not share it. LISTEN to it. That is what music is for, remember?

I wouldn't claim vinyl as the format of the future. But it is a viable niche market - as the large number of audiophile pressings attests.

um. . .last time I checked, vinyl reigned supreme as THE leading audio format for many decades longer than CD. Sony and other major record labels still routinely release vinyl.

SACD production is an expensive process.

Only insofar as newer technology is more expensive than older technology. SACD production is not innately more expensive than producing other formats, in the long run.

Recordings are selected to appeal to a particular niche market and reflect certain priorities. CD and vinyl OTOH reflect pretty much everything that has been recorded over the last 100 years - good or bad.

That's because those formats have been around for more than 20 years and became mass marketed.

This in turn highlights a fundamental weakness of the new format.

What? That it was just recently invented? You remind me of the prospective employer who sees a perfect job candidate but refuses to hire him because of lack of experience, even though he could do the job better than the more experienced applicants.

CD, regardless of its quality, offered a new and convenient alternative. SACD does not. In fact it is far less convenient than other newer formats.

Nonsense. In what way?

erm, I did check. Yesterday. At one of Tokyo's leading jazz specialist shops.

Then why are you citing examples that were released a couple years ago or more? BTW, how much were these selling for (though they were released a year ago and are old news as well)?
http://www.venusrecord.com/SACD/index.html

Anyway, it's good that SACD has its defenders. I may come across as anti-SACD. I'm not. It's simply that SACD's time has already passed.

Seems you're anti-SACD any way you slice it.

I'm not in the market for a new CD - my battleship TEAC will last for a good few years.

Ah. . .at least the real reason comes out. Afraid to find digital audio you like better.

shawn-m said:
Since SACD is not in a position to compete against CD’s popularity, it does matter.

No it doesn't. A hybrid SACD *is* a CD. They're one and the same. If you try to buy a Stones ABKCO title you will be buying an SACD even if you only play the CD layer. Since the SACD is SINGLE INVENTORY, it doesn't compete against the CD version because it IS the CD version. Make sense?

Though back-catalogs help labels stay in business, it’s new “hot” material they seek and promote for its profit potential; Blue Note & Nora Jones, Verve & Diana Krall, Atlantic & Kamikaze, Mercury Nashville & Shania Twain. New material released by hot/popular artists will push people to investigate SACD only if it is exclusive to SACD and can’t be had by any other means. This is also where successful copy protection stands to earn its keep.

That's why I said the Norah should have been made a hybrid SACD from its initial release, if BN was serious about the format--which it most certainly isn't.

Will SACD become a popular format because people buy Stones CDs without knowing or caring about the SACD layer?

No. But if record labels push hybrids to some critical mass, and then stop producing CD content, they can force transparent adoption of SACD.

Will people buy universal players and suddenly discover the benefits of SACDs they’ve had on their shelves for weeks, months or years? Maybe, but I doubt to the tune of overthrowing CD.

If it was up to consumers only, I fear you'd be right. Thing is, it's up to record labels, too. And they need a secure format.

Tenorman said:
I have a large number of CDs A £2000 Sony SACD player did not reproduce the one I brought along as well as the £1000 CD player I ultimately bought.

You're basing this on one CD? Maybe the Sony played it more "correct", i.e., as it sounds on a more transparent player. But that's just a guess. Anyway, you might want to choose a bigger sample size than one CD heard on one system in one room next time.

I went round two chain record shops and two specialist Jazz shops last Saturday. The SACDs on offer were minimal.

I buy most of mine from cduniverse.com and other web retailers. I've wasted enough time in my life putting around to various record shops and flipping through the stock. The internet does have its advantages.

So, having listened to SACD and CD in more than one Hi-Fi, and only hearing a marginal improvement between SACD and CD, and hearing a poorer quality when the SACD deck plays standard CDs, I think my decision is both obvious and logical.

I'm happy you're happy, but you must admit that your analysis was not particularly conclusive or thorough. Had you chosen to go with the SACD player, my guess is you'd be as happy as I am, with both CD and SACD performance.

As I said the decision to go for the £1000 CD player rather than the £2000 SACD player was a no-contest decision. I can now go and buy another 100 or so CDs with the money I have saved

Prediction: if you ever upgrade to SACD, you'll wonder why you didn't start collecting SACDs earlier.

Claude said:
In that case, I would worry about the CD reproduction capacities of the player.

With the SCD-1, there isn't a lot to worry about.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Originally posted by Tenorman
I have a large number of CDs A £2000 Sony SACD player did not reproduce the one I brought along as well as the £1000 CD player I ultimately bought.

I'm sorry, but I hate what they're doing to you over there in the UK... there is no way that you should be paying £2000 for a very good sounding SACD player. That's outrageous! My Pioneer DV-45A sounds great with both SACDs, DVD-A's and CDs. This player sells for around $400 here! That should be less than £300.

Originally posted by Tenorman
I went round two chain record shops and two specialist Jazz shops last Saturday. The SACDs on offer were minimal.

My favorite Jazz shop in Boston, Stereo Jack's, won't offer SACDs either. That's the shop owner's choice. If it forces me, as an SACD buyer, to go elsewhere, who loses? I'd love to give Jack this business but he says they won't sell. Instead, Bullmoose Music special orders all my SACDs and has gotten about $300 in sales in the last 6 months.

Originally posted by Tenorman
So, having listened to SACD and CD in more than one Hi-Fi, and only hearing a marginal improvement between SACD and CD, and hearing a poorer quality when the SACD deck plays standard CDs, I think my decision is both obvious and logical.

Why pay twice the price for a source which is going to make my existing CD collection sound worse, when there is little in the way of software to be found in London, that I would want to buy, to get a small improvement in quality.

As I said the decision to go for the £1000 CD player rather than the £2000 SACD player was a no-contest decision. I can now go and buy another 100 or so CDs with the money I have saved

I think you made a mistake... two mistakes, actually. The first was going to a high fi shop that offered only a high-priced Sony SACD player. The second was in not buying a player that met your criteria for good CD sound while giving you SACD playback capability as well.

BTW, my Pioneer is my second SACD player. My first was a cheapie Sony machine and, you'll be pleased to hear, sounded like crap on standard CDs. The Pioneer is miles ahead of that machine. As a nice bonus, it also plays any DVD-Audio discs I feel like trying out for a spin (mostly rock). I've never regretted my decision.

Later,
Kevin

[Claude]

I agree in part with Tenorman. SACD shows it's entire (stereo) benefits only with excellent players. I owned 3 SACD players up to now, a $400 Sony (SCD-XB770QS), a $400 Philips DVD963SA (which I use for DVDs mainly) and the Sony SCD-XA777ES ($3000 list price).

The big Sony was a revelation, on CD and SACD playback. With the cheaper players I had problems hearing the difference between CD and SACD, when the mastering was comparable (like on most Sony SACDs). But with the Sony XA the difference became very clear, although i would still consider it marginal with many discs. It is similar to that between a US K2 remastered CD and a XRCD of the same title. Not relevant for the normal music listener with a $2000 system.

[vibes]

Anyone have a link to a list of upcoming SACD releases?

I just bought a second SACD player for my home office, a cheap Pioneer that also has DVD-A capability. Now that I have the capability of listening to my SACD's in the place where I listen to music the most, I'm a lot more excited about picking up new SACD releases...and I might even give some DVD-A releases a try too.

[Leeway]

Most of the arguments, pro and con, have been made, and, since I'm a Libra (balanced scales and all that), I'm sitting here going- good point pro, good point anti :)

So I won't rehash any of that, but go back to my original point, which is the commercial viability of the SACD format.

Sony, which should be the prime mover for SACD, simply hasn't done enough in terms of hardware to move SACD along. In my neck of the woods, home theater is king, and its Sony's DVD equipment that is getting pushed hard. I can find ads in the Washington Post anyday of the week in the DC area for DVD players for home theater; I don't think I've ever seen and ad for an SACD player, or which touted an SACD player's features

Every audio dealer I have talked to has told me that home theater equipment dominates their sales, and, in some cases, if it were not for home theater (and flat screen TVs), they would have shuttered. When I tell them I'm a stereo/2-channel, even vinyl- type of guy, they look at me like I'm a very quaint specimen (I am!). Home theater is all about DVD (and flat screens, special chairs, football games, etc).

The home theater crowd wants SOUND, as in room-shaking movie car crash sounds, not AUDIO. I doubt their muical proclivities, or interest in audio as such. But if their audio interests are stirred, it is going to have to be through using their home theater equipment. As far as I can tell, SACD is simply not a factor in home theater equipment. I do think that will be fatal to SACD's future as a generally popular piece of sudio equipment, although it might very well hang on as a specialty item (like turntables).

If Sony bothered to put out a truly full range of SCAD/CD players, maybe Tenorman would have found one that matched up dollar for dollar (pound for poud/ euro for euro, etc). I don't blame Tenorman for picking a 1,000 pound model over a 2,000 pound model. The vast majority of shoppers will do the same.

I would love to have Greg's SCD-1, but there are 2 problems there: damned expensive; and, Sony doesn't make it anymore (if it does, it's a closely guarded secret).

Philips and Marantz have tried to fill that niche, with uneven results, but they do not have Sony's marketing power.

I have 3 kids in college. They have sampled my vinyl and CD collection They've listened to Bach and Coltrane and Bird since they were kids. Nevertheless, they rely on their computers for music, MP3, etc. Can they (and their peer group) be made to care about SACD? Right now, I think the answer is no, based on what I have seen.

Having said all that, I still might buy that Pioneer that Kevin likes so much ;) At the least I will give it a listen.

[Claude]

vibes,

http://www.sa-cd.net is the best SACD database, and has an "upcoming titles" page.

You can also find announcements of new SACD and DVD-A releases here:

http://www.highfidelityreview.com

[vibes]

Many thanks, Claude.

[Tenorman]

The Sony SCD1 is available in this country at the discounted price of £3218. far more than I was willing to pay for a single source component.

Greg - which CD only player did you make your comparisons with? What amp and speakers are you using

[shawn·m]

I largely agree with your point of view, Leeway. I often find myself simply watching SACD/DVD-A/whatever bickering from a distance; there are so many variables, and I’ve already made my choices. But commercial viability is a provocative subject.

[Claude]

Tenorman,

You may be interested in the Sony SCD-777ES, which is very similar to the SCD-1 as far as the electronics are concerned. The SCD-1 has a different, heavier case and additional XLR outputs.

The SCD-777ES can be found used more often, at $2000 and less. It must not be confused with the later multichannel player SCD-XA777ES. I own the latter and am very satisfied with the CD and SACD performance. It has just been replaced by the SCD-X9000ES and can be found at a discounted price too. I paid 1600 Euro a few months ago.

[Greg]

Leeway said:
Sony, which should be the prime mover for SACD, simply hasn't done enough in terms of hardware to move SACD along. In my neck of the woods, home theater is king, and its Sony's DVD equipment that is getting pushed hard. I can find ads in the Washington Post anyday of the week in the DC area for DVD players for home theater; I don't think I've ever seen and ad for an SACD player, or which touted an SACD player's features

Many of Sony's DVD and home-theater-in-a-box systems support SACD. Do you really think touting it in a weekly ad is the key to format success?

Every audio dealer I have talked to has told me that home theater equipment dominates their sales, and, in some cases, if it were not for home theater (and flat screen TVs), they would have shuttered. When I tell them I'm a stereo/2-channel, even vinyl- type of guy, they look at me like I'm a very quaint specimen (I am!). Home theater is all about DVD (and flat screens, special chairs, football games, etc).

Well, in case you didn't notice, SACD is a multichannel capable format and CD is not, so home theater and surround sound fans will be attracted to SACD. Sony thought it through pretty well.

The home theater crowd wants SOUND, as in room-shaking movie car crash sounds, not AUDIO. I doubt their muical proclivities, or interest in audio as such. But if their audio interests are stirred, it is going to have to be through using their home theater equipment. As far as I can tell, SACD is simply not a factor in home theater equipment.

Then you're simply wrong. Look at these Sony DVD players which support SACD.
http://interprod5.imgusa.com/son-637/products_sub_page.asp?pProductCategoryId=2
And look at these HT-in-a-box systems that support SACD.
http://interprod5.imgusa.com/son-637/products_sub_page.asp?pProductCategoryId=3

I can go into local best buy or Fry's stores and find these in their weekly flyers on sale. You should really do your homework better, before promoting misconceptions.

I do think that will be fatal to SACD's future as a generally popular piece of sudio equipment, although it might very well hang on as a specialty item (like turntables).

What is fatal to SACD's potential success are the type of misconceptions that are propogated on the internet (by types like you) and the inability of record labels to unite behind a format that is good for the labels and good for the consumers.

If Sony bothered to put out a truly full range of SCAD/CD players, maybe Tenorman would have found one that matched up dollar for dollar (pound for poud/ euro for euro, etc). I don't blame Tenorman for picking a 1,000 pound model over a 2,000 pound model. The vast majority of shoppers will do the same.

Again, Sony already has. I don't know why Tenorman is having problems but plenty of British and European music lovers have had great demo experiences, adopted SACD and are enjoying it.

I would love to have Greg's SCD-1, but there are 2 problems there: damned expensive; and, Sony doesn't make it anymore (if it does, it's a closely guarded secret).

It's still listed on Sony's website, so I assume it's available.
http://interprod5.imgusa.com/son-637/products_sub_page_2.asp?pProductId=7&pProductCategoryId=1

Philips and Marantz have tried to fill that niche, with uneven results, but they do not have Sony's marketing power.

You're way behind the times and even still, you forgot Pioneer. Denon, Onkyo, Yamaha, Toshiba and others are in the game now. This isn't just Sony, Philips, Pioneer and Marantz anymore. And just as importantly, many high end players are now available that weren't before. My buddy just bought a dCS verdi to complement his other dCS gear, so no he's SACD-compatible. I'll be going over to check out how SACD sounds on his JMLab Utopias on Tuesday night and can't wait!

Tenorman said:
Greg - which CD only player did you make your comparisons with? What amp and speakers are you using

When I was shopping for new system components, starting in '99 and lasting about a year, I listened to about a dozen CD players and ended up choosing the SCD-1. SACD was *a* consideration, but not *the* consideration. Wadia, Krell, Naim, MF and Arcam were just some of the CD players I sampled, in a variety of systems and rooms. I isolate my SCD-1 with Aurios. I feel isolation is critical to getting a clear picture of the formats, and probably can't be adequately addressed without a heavy chassis and serious attempts at isolation.

I also ended up with Nautilus B&W 802 speakers, VAC Avatar amplification and a lot of power gear because I found that addressing power made a huge difference. I'm using the PS Audio P600 power plant. And I was using the Electra Glide Fat Man 2000 Gold power cords, but those were upgraded to the Electra Glide Ultra Khan 2 cords. My system is truer to the source and more resolving and dynamic with this attention to power (as I recently rediscovered when I had to pull the Fat Mans). Granted, these power cords are luxuries not everyone can afford (the UK2s list for $4500 each), but I find it helps show the formats for what they really are.

For what it's worth, I also use a VPI Scout TT with Aurum Beta S cartridge and I am in a small house, so I have integrated my two channel system into an HT system with additional Audio Refinement amplification that complements my tube amp. I use the B&W Nautilus HTM1 and 805 for center and rear speakers, respectively and the ASW-800 sub. My cabling is all Alpha Core Goertz MI2, MI1 and silver sapphire interconnects (except for a cheap Tara cable going to my sub, which isn't turned on for music).

[porcy 62]

Greg,
are you so happy with your Sacds?
Go on, but it's not fair to accuse people of boycott a new format.
You should remember when the worst (vhs) won the war of home video format (a remarquable example of customer care).
Or the end of vinyl days when big companies kept the new cd's price artificially high, (customer care, I guess).
It is not strange that this new format came out in a market big crisis.
The goal of a company is dollar, euro, yen, pound.
The recent remastered cds sound like a different format compared to the old one, same with players.
So most of us are just waiting.
I have more than 5000 vinyl and cd, until now I have not found a single Sacd title that I do not have in Lp or good remastered cd. (for vinyl/sacd/cd comparison title check Acoustic Sound Web site http://store.acousticsounds.com/)
I will buy a Sacd player when I will find new records of Dave Douglas, John Zorn or Steve Coleman on Sacd, when old titles will cost less then a good vinyl, when you do not need to buy a Dcs to fully appreciate the sound quality, I simply doubt this will happen, not because of a conservative conspiracy of bizarre audiophiles, but because the music companies will end to musical server, cheaper for them and user friendly for the new generations that are web-growned.
But, if Sacd, thanks to multi standards players will be more profitable for music companies than musical servers we will live with Sacd maybe ten or twenty years, like cd's era, until the next market crisis or next format.

[Greg]

I will buy a Sacd player when I will find new records of Dave Douglas, John Zorn or Steve Coleman on Sacd, when old titles will cost less then a good vinyl, when you do not need to buy a Dcs to fully appreciate the sound quality, I simply doubt this will happen

It already has happened. Maybe not with Douglas, Zorn or Coleman but with Mengelberg, Pieranunzi, Blanchard and others. You opted to get CD versions (assuming you have titles such as Four in One, Jazz Impressions for Trio, Let's Get Lost, etc., but you could have bought SACDs. And there are many fine SACD players to choose from between a cheap HT system and the dCS Verdi.

I'm not saying you are purposefully boycotting SACD to hurt the format, but that is the upshot. This is an incredible opportunity for those of us who care about sound quality. I'm listening to the new Art Pepper + 11 SACD right now, and it's incredible. It goes beyond what CD can do, and where I find myself wanting to turn CD down, I want to turn up the SACD, so fine is the resolution and tonal cues that make me think I am hearing real instruments in my room, instead of a recording. Before that I listened to the Dolphy SACD, Out There, and never heard a bass clarinet so articulate and present on my system, except maybe on bennie Maupin's contribution to Bitches Brew, which I also have on SACD.

So yes, I am so happy with my SACDs and I hope the format continues to make strides and gain acceptance.

[Leeway]

Hey, Greg, I see you haven't mellowed one bit. If audio was religion, you'd be a Taliban. BTW, audio is NOT religion.


GREG said:

^^^ Do you really think touting it in a weekly ad is the key to format success? ^^^

Yes.


GREG said: ^^^Well, in case you didn't notice, SACD is a multichannel capable format and CD is not^^^

Guess what, i did notice that! What i didn't notice is that the players that are getting that weekly sales puchs do NOT have SACD capability.


GREG said: ^^^so home theater and surround sound fans will be attracted to SACD. Sony thought it through pretty well........
Then you're simply wrong. Look at these Sony DVD players which support SACD. ^^^^^

Sony has thought it out; that's why it seems to be hedging its own bet. Perhaps they still have Betamax syndrome?

I went to MSN shopping and typed in Sony DVD. Here's a link I found:

http://shopping.msn.com/fts/ftsresults.aspx?searchText=sony+dvd&searchType=1&fcId=4&ptnrid=22&ptnrdata=3000]http://shopping.msn.com/fts/ftsresults.aspx?searchText=sony+dvd&searchType=1&fcId=4&ptnrid=22&ptnrdata=3000

NONE of the SONY players that pop up, all for home theater, has SACD. What the hell is that about?! GREG, maybe YOU are wrong (I know, the though never entered your head).

GREG:
^^^I can go into local best buy or Fry's stores and find these in their weekly flyers on sale.^^^

That's pure bull. I've been in Best Buy numerous times. Not only is SACD not being pushed, it's presence is not even apparent. I know. I gone out and looked. That's one of the biggest "Big Box" stores, and I have not seen any evidence that SACD is being pushed, or even available in most cases.

GREG: ^^You should really do your homework better, before promoting misconceptions. ^^

I have. Start with the article I posted to beging this thread.


LEEWAY:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do think that will be fatal to SACD's future as a generally popular piece of sudio equipment, although it might very well hang on as a specialty item (like turntables).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GREG said:
^^^What is fatal to SACD's potential success are the type of misconceptions that are propogated on the internet (by types like you) and the inability of record labels to unite behind a format that is good for the labels and good for the consumers. ^^

Wow, I didn't know I had so much influence! I guess what you are saying is that only those who write glowing reviews of the product, or have a financial motive to push it, should be allowed to comment on it. That's plain weird. I stand by what I said. SACD may be a niche player, like TTs.

As for the "type" that I am, that kind of insulting comment made you persona non grata on the old BNBB, Organisimo, and generally any other place you decide to make your presence known.

I notice that you didn't bother to quote my first comment, that each side of the debate has merit, and my last comment, that despite my doubts I was still interested in getting a SACD/CD player. Keven B is a far more persuasive advocate that you. I suspect you've turned more people off to SACD than I ever have.

[Greg]

Originally posted by Leeway
GREG said: ^^^Well, in case you didn't notice, SACD is a multichannel capable format and CD is not^^^
Guess what, i did notice that! What i didn't notice is that the players that are getting that weekly sales puchs do NOT have SACD capability.

Here in the bay area, at Frys and Circuit City and Best Buy, those machines are often on sale, sometimes featured in the weekly flyers. What difference does it make anyway? The real success with SACD will come from software. You can have all the cheap players you want, but unless there is a more significant push to release lots of titles on SACD, it won't matter. When you want to start a fire, do you use lots of matches or lots of kindling wood?

GREG said: ^^^so home theater and surround sound fans will be attracted to SACD. Sony thought it through pretty well........
Then you're simply wrong. Look at these Sony DVD players which support SACD. ^^^^^
Sony has thought it out; that's why it seems to be hedging its own bet. Perhaps they still have Betamax syndrome?

Sony helped fund BN's SACDs, OJC's SACDs, Verve/Impulse's SACDs, and more. There is an aggressive program at Sony to promote SACD--as much on the pro end as the consumer end. But the budget is finite.

I went to MSN shopping and typed in Sony DVD. Here's a link I found:
http://shopping.msn.com/fts/ftsresults.aspx?searchText=sony+dvd&searchType=1&fcId=4&ptnrid=22&ptnrdata=3000]http://shopping.msn.com/fts/ftsresults.aspx?searchText=sony+dvd&searchType=1&fcId=4&ptnrid=22&ptnrdata=3000
NONE of the SONY players that pop up, all for home theater, has SACD. What the hell is that about?! GREG, maybe YOU are wrong (I know, the though never entered your head).

What am I wrong about? I never said MSN shopping was the place to go to get SACD players. Though as for that, here's a link I pulled up: http://shopping.msn.com/fts/ftsresults.aspx?searchText=sacd&searchType=1&fcId=4

GREG:^^^I can go into local best buy or Fry's stores and find these in their weekly flyers on sale.^^^
That's pure bull. I've been in Best Buy numerous times. Not only is SACD not being pushed, it's presence is not even apparent. I know. I gone out and looked. That's one of the biggest "Big Box" stores, and I have not seen any evidence that SACD is being pushed, or even available in most cases.

You're full of shit. Products like this are availale at EVERY Best Buy:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=1051826211926&skuId=5424034&type=product

Moreover, Best Buy's own website has a long pitch about SACD. Here it is:
SACD: Own the Finest Sound Available
If you're looking to set up a listening environment that will astound and wrap itself around you, then Super Audio CD (SACD) is your ticket to audiophile nirvana.
Here are just a few reasons why:
SACD contains over 7 times the data of CD, resulting in an amazingly realistic sound that blows conventional CDs away.
With an SACD-player and a surround sound system, your SACD discs can deliver a stunning 360-degree listening environment.
Hybrid SACD discs can be played on your current CD players with CD-quality stereo sound.
All SACD players can play conventional CDs and make them sound significantly better. Some SACD players also function as MP3 and DVD-Video players, eliminating the need for multiple components.
For all the advantages that CDs have provided over the years (crisp digital sound, compact format, no cleaning required), many listeners continue to complain about the lack of warmth in CD sound. The introduction of SACD finally provides the transcendent home audio environment that many of us have been waiting for.

"When the orchestra came into the booth and listened to the (SACD) playback, they were completely blown away. They had never heard anything like this."
— Jerry Goldsmith (film composer and conductor), Home Theater

"Once you hear a Super Audio CD, you will never want to go back."
— Joel Brinkley, New York Times

Direct Stream Digital is the secret ingredient
At the heart of SACD is the Direct Stream Digital (DSD) recording technique, which applies dramatic new levels of accuracy to digital recording. Originally created to digitally archive priceless analog master tapes, DSD uses 1-bit delta-sigma modulation and a sampling frequency 64x higher than CD. SACD also provides a frequency response of 100kHz and a dynamic range of 120dB across the audible range, leading to very accurate reproduction of original source material (CD is limited to 22.05kHz and a dynamic range of 96dB). The result is sound that is nearly free of distortion and signal noise, so you'll hear music that is remarkably faithful to the original performance.
360-degree sound is the answer
Played over an SACD player and surround sound system, SACD discs can create a 360-degree listening experience that can only be topped by a live performance. But don't think of surround sound as some gimmick that merely swirls sound effects around your head. It is, rather, an expression of musical realism that recording engineers have always hoped to achieve.
With 6 channels to work with and the ability to separate instruments and voices with remarkable clarity, many engineers will experiment and create intoxicating ways to lay out sound within a room. Others may use the extra channels to more faithfully reproduce the precise acoustic signature of the original performance space. Either way, it means a home listening experience that'll inspire and surprise in a way standard CD never could.

Stop into Best Buy for all the gear
Take a visit to your local Best Buy for the players, surround sound systems and other gear that'll deliver a peak SACD listening experience. Best Buy also carries a range of SACD titles, with many new discs on the way. You'll find a variety of genres, including rock, R&B, classical and jazz. Many of your favorite older albums have been remixed and remastered to bring you closer than ever to the original recording (including the recently released hybrid SACD/CD version of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon). There are also many new releases that have been recorded with SACD in mind during the creative process — promising an astounding surround sound experience.
Keep in mind that there are four possible configurations of SACD discs, which can be somewhat confusing initially. However, you'll find each SACD disc labeled with a sticker clearly explaining which type it is. Basically, you'll find single-layer discs that can only be played on a SACD player (for optimal sound) — and hybrid discs which can also be played on conventional CD players (making it the format of choice for many SACD releases).

That sounds like a pretty heavy pitch to me. If you don't think so, you're nuts. What more do you want, an invitation on a silver platter?

GREG: ^^You should really do your homework better, before promoting misconceptions. ^^
I have. Start with the article I posted to beging this thread.

Ok, let's start with that. Here is the quote: "It's "shades of Beta versus VHS," said Tom Edwards, analyst at NPD Group Inc., a market research firm. "It's a format war all over again, but the differences aren't as obvious this time around . . . and right now it's more a question of whether either of them will win."

How is that anything at all like VHS vs Beta, in which neither format was going up against an established format? Face it, the "analysis" in articles such as these aren't very analytical.

GREG said:
^^^What is fatal to SACD's potential success are the type of misconceptions that are propogated on the internet (by types like you) and the inability of record labels to unite behind a format that is good for the labels and good for the consumers. ^^
Wow, I didn't know I had so much influence!

You don't. But the collective drip drip drip of negativity and misinformation provided by those like you is enough to turn public sentiment against SACD. Chalk it up to ignorance and fear of the unknown.

I guess what you are saying is that only those who write glowing reviews of the product, or have a financial motive to push it, should be allowed to comment on it. That's plain weird. I stand by what I said. SACD may be a niche player, like TTs.

TTs were the dominant hardware for decades. SACD is nothing like that. It could be the format of the future if it had the support it deserved. And I do think it deserves glowing reviews. Why folks like you are whining about it so much, I have no idea. We're lucky it's even being offered. Otherwise it would just be DVD-A or downloads as the poential future of digital audio.

As for the "type" that I am, that kind of insulting comment made you persona non grata on the old BNBB, Organisimo, and generally any other place you decide to make your presence known.

Well, like it or not, you are a "type". You're the type that whines about SACD and spreads total misinformation.

I notice that you didn't bother to quote my first comment, that each side of the debate has merit, and my last comment, that despite my doubts I was still interested in getting a SACD/CD player. Keven B is a far more persuasive advocate that you. I suspect you've turned more people off to SACD than I ever have.

So you don't even know how SACD sounds in your sysem? Figures. Kevin B and myself are interested in music. If you are, you'll eventually come around and start hearing the advantages of SACD. If you want to turn this personal, go ahead. I'm only going to discuss your comments in the context of the subject, though.

[vibes]

Originally posted by Leeway
GREG:
^^^I can go into local best buy or Fry's stores and find these in their weekly flyers on sale.^^^

That's pure bull. I've been in Best Buy numerous times. Not only is SACD not being pushed, it's presence is not even apparent. I know. I gone out and looked. That's one of the biggest "Big Box" stores, and I have not seen any evidence that SACD is being pushed, or even available in most cases.



I don't want to get in the middle of your argument, but with all due respect, you're completely wrong on this, Leeway. I've never been into a Best Buy that didn't have SACD's for sale or at least one piece of SACD-capable hardware for sale. As far as stand-alone players, Best Buy currently carries one Pioneer player that is DVD/DVD-A/SACD capable. There is at least one Sony home theater in-a-box that is SACD capable for sale in stores, and at least 1-2 other models available on the website. The hardware and some titles are definitely available.

Are SACD and DVD-A being pushed by the big box retailers? Not really, but they care enough to have some hardware and some titles available for purchase. SACD may catch on eventually, but for the time being, yes, it will probably remain a niche product. Most people haven't yet heard of it. Are retailers to blame for this? Partially...

[Greg]

Thanks Vibes. I was starting to think there were two chains called Best Buy.

[vibes]

No problem. Not only do I work at the Best Buy corporate office, but I've also bought two SACD players at Best Buy stores. I figured I should chime in. ;)

[Claude]

Originally posted by Greg
It already has happened. Maybe not with Douglas, Zorn or Coleman but with Mengelberg, Pieranunzi, Blanchard and others. You opted to get CD versions (assuming you have titles such as Four in One, Jazz Impressions for Trio, Let's Get Lost, etc., but you could have bought SACDs.

Yes, but as you know Greg, those small labels had their SACD startup costs subsidized by Sony. After a first SACD batch, labels such as Songlines (Mengelberg) and Challenge (Pieranunzi) don't seem to have new SACDs in the pipeline.

the SACD take-off has been announced many times during the last two years, but it fails to happen.

[Leeway]

Greg, I think you should quit whining about all us terrible, terrible, NASTY people who refuse to simply accept the gospel according to Greg.

I'm arguing that SONY has not made the kind of push that the format needs. yes, that includes SACD on all their digital players. Yes, that means consistent sales support and wide availability of product. (see how Sony turned the Walkman, in its various incarnations and formats, into a hugely popular product). That's why I think sales are lagging. The article cites sales figures that back that up. Note, I have not attacked the SACD format itself, or its capabilities. I'm quite willing to believe that SACD has many excellences. So does my vinyl collection. The point of the thread is that, so far, the format has not made the commercial impact it needs to make to stick around (even if Best Buy keeps one or two models on its sales floor- I've not seen them, but I won't make a big deal out of it).

You're argument sort of deconstructs itself. In essence, you argue that there is already an abundance of players and product available (I think you overstate the case). That being so, SACDs dismal sales figures (when compared to other formats) must, at best, be something of a mystery.

If we're still having this argument next year, then my point will be made. SACD will be a niche product; that doesn't really bother me. If SACD takes over from CD in a major way, that's fine with me. I just don't see it happening.

BTW, I'm under no illusion that you can be persuaded to my point of view, or would even be willing to acknowledge its legitimacy. You are a fanatic (I wish I knew why, it really seems to have become a pathology with you), I'm simply an interested oberserver. I care about the music first, the format and playing mechanism second.

[Greg]

Claude said:Yes, but as you know Greg, those small labels had their SACD startup costs subsidized by Sony. After a first SACD batch, labels such as Songlines (Mengelberg) and Challenge (Pieranunzi) don't seem to have new SACDs in the pipeline.

That's because of a lack of jazz fans enjoying those initial SACDs. Meanwhile, a small classical label, Channel Classics, just announced that it will stop producing CD only discs and all new releases will be hybrids. According to the label CDs "...take too much space in the warehouse and a good deal of our distributors are only taking SACD only releases when ordering."

Did you understand? Distributors ordering SACD releases only from a label that has done SACD right. That's partially because the label had the vision and expertise to execute a successful hybrid SACD series, but also because classical fans have realized what jazz fans are apparently too tin-eared or stupid to realize: SACD is the way to go.

The very people who should be rushing to buy these excellent SACDs are instead whining that Sony isn't doing enough. Ironic, isn't it? Ideally, there would be more support for SACD at the labels and more subsidizing by Sony, but as I said, the budget is finite.

the SACD take-off has been announced many times during the last two years, but it fails to happen.

It fails to happen on a mass scale, but with SACDs by the Allman Bros, Derek and the Dominos, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Dylan, Norah Jones, Elton John, the Who, Depeche Mode, Soulstar, and other big names, it is happening. If only there were more enthusiasm for SACD among consumers, record labels and electronics manufacturers. There is some enthusiasm, but not enough.

Leeway said:I'm arguing that SONY has not made the kind of push that the format needs.

Oh, I know. It's not enough for you that Sony has introduced the format, invested the R&D dollars into SACD discs and SACD players, the manufactering dollars, the marketing dollars, the distribution dollars, the courting of producers like Bob Belden, Jody Klein, Maurice White, Bryan Koniarz, etc. etc. It's not enough that Sony is subsidizing SACD production with competing labels.

So what do you propose? Should Sony sell TriStar to fund the production of hybrid SACDs for its entire catalog and every other label that wants a free ride? Should Sony electronics sell off its Trinitron business to fund the engineering and manufacturing push that would be required to change every one of its disc machine offerings to be SACD compatible? That just isn't reasonable, it isn't going to happen.

Consumers and record labels other than Sony will have to show more interest and shoulder some of the cost. As an early adopter, I did the hard part. I spent $3500 on the SCD-1 and in the old days, $24.99 a pop for many SACDs--some I could get for less, but I was happy to pay the premium to support what I knew to be a worthy format. Now you have more options and cheaper discs and hardware. Ads have been taken out in dozens of magazines--including jazz rags--radio spots during the Stones tour, SACD kiosks at many retailers. What more do you want? A supermodel with every SACD you buy?

(see how Sony turned the Walkman, in its various incarnations and formats, into a hugely popular product).

That's a red herring. It has no place in a comparison with SACD. Tape casettes were an established format. The walkman had clear advantages (in portability) over preceeding players that were easily apparent to all consumers. The whole marketing strategy was simple--much more straightforward than making SACD a mass market success.

That's why I think sales are lagging. The article cites sales figures that back that up.

That back what up? The notion that if Sony marketed SACD players like walkmen, SACD would have a clear path to success? You're just not thinking clearly. That and you have no marketing sense.

Note, I have not attacked the SACD format itself, or its capabilities. I'm quite willing to believe that SACD has many excellences.

So why are you refusing to put your money where your mouth is? SACD is worh supporting, not just paying lip service to.

The point of the thread is that, so far, the format has not made the commercial impact it needs to make to stick around

Because people like you who Sony was banking on to show interest have NOT SHOWN INTEREST. This makes it harder for Sony's experts at the label like David Kawakami to pitch SACD to other labels and to get more funding from the executives at Sony. They're all for bringing a new technology to market, but probably not if it's a perennial budget buster. Your ilk's collective view that SACD is a niche format is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You refuse to support the format, whining that it doesn't have enough support.

(even if Best Buy keeps one or two models on its sales floor- I've not seen them, but I won't make a big deal out of it).

You already did make a big deal of it, and yet again spouted your misconceptions. And when it was shown to you that you were wrong, you launch into personal attacks. Pathetic. If you want every disc machine at Best Buy to be SACD-compatible, you'll have to register that wish with record labels and electronics manufacturers, and there's nothing like money to help those companies get your message. Adopt the format, and then you'll be helping it. Until then, you're just part of the problem.

You're argument sort of deconstructs itself. In essence, you argue that there is already an abundance of players and product available (I think you overstate the case). That being so, SACDs dismal sales figures (when compared to other formats) must, at best, be something of a mystery.

Not at all. It's no mystery. You're a perfect example why SACD isn't taking off among consumers. And Warner Music Group, which has poor management and rarely has consumer interests at heart and drove its business into the ground, is a perfect example of why SACD is not taking off among record labels. It's all due to ignorance, lack of vision and misconception that translates to lack of investment on eveyone's part but Sony.

BTW, I'm under no illusion that you can be persuaded to my point of view, or would even be willing to acknowledge its legitimacy. You are a fanatic (I wish I knew why, it really seems to have become a pathology with you), I'm simply an interested oberserver. I care about the music first, the format and playing mechanism second.

While you're too busy playing make-believe marketing analyst and psychiatrist to ignore what I'm telling you, the chance for you to do your little part to enjoy music on this fantastic format and help SACD become mass marketed may be slowly starting to slip away. And that would be a shame. For all of us. Your ilk is more committed to misconceptions and ignorance than to exploring the increased resolution of music you love on a superior format and improving the future of digital audio. It's sad.

[Leeway]

Greg, you complain about things getting personal ,but it was you who injected the personal into it. When you sneer at people, which is what you do, you shouldn't expect a pat on the back in return. Your frustration must be showing, for example, your comment, "jazz fans are apparently too tin-eared or stupid to realize SACD is the way to go." Name-calling is not going to win adherents. You have a long history of personal attack, so it's rich that you want to whine about it.

Well, let me respond to some of your points, although I recognize this is an exercise in frustration.

Greg said: "The very people who should be rushing to buy these excellent SACDs are instead whining that Sony isn't doing enough. Ironic, isn't it? Ideally, there would be more support for SACD at the labels and more subsidizing by Sony, but as I said, the budget is finite."

Nobody's whining (except you). My assessment is that Sony hasn't done enough to make SACD a dominant format. They took on a huge task-- establishing a new format -- which indeed takes buckets of cash, but they have proceeded in uneven fashion. In comparison with Sony's total outlay, I doubt that SACD takes up a significant portion. But having decided to launch it, they are primarily responsible for pushing it along. I think their product lineup reflects a certain hedging of bets as to the future viability of SACD vs DVD-A vs redbook. I do believe that the Beta experience has made the company leery of substabtial investment in new product or format.

Greg said: "If only there were more enthusiasm for SACD among consumers, record labels and electronics manufacturers. There is some enthusiasm, but not enough."

Thank you for making my point. Exactly why there is this lack of enthusiasm is open to debate. You simply blame people for not getting with it, calling them stupid. There are many reasons. here are some:

(1) The under-25 crowd apparently prefers Ipods, MP3s, music downloads, etc. Look at the success of the Ipod during this same time period.

(2)The Boomer crowd already have large stocks of CDs in their collection, and do not see SACD becoming a large enough percentage of their collection to warrant a player purchase.

(3) Record companies still overwhelmingly produce redbook CDs. As long as that is the case, SACD will remain a niche product.

(4) The performance of redbook CDs has improved substantially since their introduction. 20-bit and 24-bit CDs are now common, and excellent remasterings are widely available Yes, I know, there are still inherent limitations. But the point is, the argument for further sound improvement exemplified by SACD (at least the good ones- another issue, as badly produced SACDs sound no better than their redbook counterparts) has been blunted. Just as the whole audio industry itself is a specialized segment of the market, a format whose main selling point is better audio quality, might very well end up a specialized product.

(5) Although SACD-hybrid is definitely a step in the right direction (it probably saved SACD) , the reviews I have read indicate that the redbook playback of many SACD players is inferior to that of dedicated redbook players. This is what is hanging me up. With a couple of thousand CDs and no SACDs, I need a player that can give a top-notch accounting of itself in the redbook department, while leading me on to SACD.

Greg said: "Consumers and record labels other than Sony will have to show more interest and shoulder some of the cost."

I don't see why consumers have to "shoulder some of the cost." In a market economy, consumers have the freedom to make their own choices, and find the best buy (not the store, the concept). All of a sudden, they have a moral obligation to help Sony-- I don't think so.

Greg said: " As an early adopter, I did the hard part. I spent $3500 on the SCD-1 and in the old days, $24.99 a pop for many SACDs--some I could get for less, but I was happy to pay the premium to support what I knew to be a worthy format."

Not everyone has the luxury of spending that kind of money.

Greg said: "What more do you want? A supermodel with every SACD you buy? "

That's the best idea you've ever had. Forward it to Sony and sign me up.


Leeway quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(see how Sony turned the Walkman, in its various incarnations and formats, into a hugely popular product).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greg said: "That's a red herring. It has no place in a comparison with SACD. Tape casettes were an established format. The walkman had clear advantages (in portability) over preceeding players that were easily apparent to all consumers. The whole marketing strategy was simple--much more straightforward than making SACD a mass market success."

The Walkman has been through several iterations. From tape to CD to MP3. As you said, "The Walkman had clear advantages ...that were easily apparent to all consumers."

Precisely, and SACD has not made that sort of case for itself.

Greg said: "you have no marketing sense." OK, I'm not a marketing guy (thank God), but I have paid attention to audio developments, from 45s to LPs, to cassette and 8-track, to quadrophonic, and CD. I look at it from a consumer's point of view. BTW, what makes you a marketing expert?

Greg: "Why are you refusing to put your money where your mouth is? SACD is worth supporting, not just paying lip service to."

I invoke my consumer right to purchase what I like, when I like, and for how much I like. I do not owe fealty to Sony, or see this as a moral crusade. In time, I might very well find the right piece of equipment for it to make sense to me. I will not be hectored into buying something.


Leeway said quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point of the thread is that, so far, the format has not made the commercial impact it needs to make to stick around
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I ask, what''s so heinous about that? I didn't write the article. The article was simply reporting on a business / commercial situation.

Geg said: "Because people like you who Sony was banking on to show interest have NOT SHOWN INTEREST."

There must be a lot of people like me, oh, people of my "ilk." Apparently a big ilk. In the free market, sellers and buyers have to make their own decisions.


Greg said: "You're a perfect example why SACD isn't taking off among consumers. And Warner Music Group, which has poor management and rarely has consumer interests at heart and drove its business into the ground, is a perfect example of why SACD is not taking off among record labels. It's all due to ignorance, lack of vision and misconception that translates to lack of investment on eveyone's part but Sony."

Wow, I'm right up there with Warner. You have totally lost perspective. My hesitations are nothing compared to Warner effing up the product. You should be whining to Warner, not me.


Greg said: "While you're too busy playing make-believe marketing analyst and psychiatrist to ignore what I'm telling you, the chance for you to do your little part to enjoy music on this fantastic format and help SACD become mass marketed may be slowly starting to slip away. And that would be a shame. For all of us. Your ilk is more committed to misconceptions and ignorance than to exploring the increased resolution of music you love on a superior format and improving the future of digital audio. It's sad."

Hey, I'm not too busy to ignore you, which is what I plan to do. And its hard not to play psychiatrist when dealing with such a pathological case. Frankly, outside of religious zealots, I have not seen such fanatical adherence to some particular idea. It's scary really.

This little thread will not make or break Sony. The marketplace will make the determination on SACD. Let's see where we are in a year's time.

[gregk]

Man, regardless of this silly argument (come on, must we argue every point??) I'm buying SACD hybrids when I'm interested in the artist until they take over the marketplace or until they disappear, or if the situation remains the same. They sound good to me on my cheap-o Sony!!

[shawn·m]

A supermodel with every SACD? Hey, it’s about time us married guys got something in return for learning the difference between toilet paper rolling under verses over. I’ll bet supermodels go through lots of toilet paper.

For what it’s worth, Leeway, and I’m going to try and stay far, far away from commenting on congeniality and sphincter factors, but I’d like to say there is another side to Greg that you haven’t yet seen. Free of charge, he sent me a copy of Brubeck’s Time Out upon learning of my plans to audition SACD. In other words, while his passion can lead down some rocky roads, he also has a generous history (in my experience, anyway).

Now I hope this doesn’t come across as if I’m trying to invalidate your thoughts, Leeway… it’s only something I thought you might want to know. And since my wife is out of town for an extended period of time, I think I’ll flip all the toilet paper rolls and leave the seats up, too.

[Greg]

Well, I'd have to buy a bigger house if I got a supermodel with every SACD. It would be too crowded in here with 200 babes no matter how sexy they are.

Seriously, I'm not going to beat my head against the wall going over the same old points with you, Leeway. We did the same thing on two other forums and you're just too ignorant to understand that Sony is doing what it can to help the format along. Beyond that, it's up to us and the record labels other than Sony, because the industry is made up of the BIG FIVE not the big one.

But Greg and Shawn make the best points: i you enjoy the music, and you care about sound quality, SACD is worth checking out and worth the money. And supporting the format comes naturally to those who care about such things. That's the bottom line.

[Leeway]

I just ordered a bunch of the Stones ABKO SACD-hybrids. Mainly because I like the Stones and did not have good copies of the early albums. Because the CD layer is supposed to sound excellent. And because-- who knows-- there might be an SACD player in my future (as I told Kevin). The thin edge of the wedge? ;)

[vibes]

Leeway,

If you're thinking about picking up an SACD player, Best Buy just marked the Pioneer DV-563A down to $149, which is extremely reasonable for a progressive scan, DVD/DVD-A/SACD/mp3/photo viewer capable player. I picked one up on Saturday and have been quite pleased with it so far. It's well worth the small amount you'd have to pay.

[mjb]

I have had the same Pioneer deck for a couple of months and it is a very good bang for the buck.

I have SACDs of Kind of Blue, Miles Smiles, IASW; Love Supreme, Blue Train; Blow by Blow; Jazz at Massey Hall; Tenor Madness and some others. I have owned and loved various LPs, cassettes, CDs of most of them.

They are all remarkable sounding discs. Kind of Blue in SACD surround mode is astounding.

[gregk]

I tend to ignore the surround layers; the music just doesn't sound natural in surround.

[mjb]

Originally posted by gregk
I tend to ignore the surround layers; the music just doesn't sound natural in surround.

Have you heard Kind of Blue in 5.1?

I remember quadraphonic sound. It was not "natural." This version, apart from the remarkable warmth & clarity, provides an ambience that comes as close as I can imagine to being in the studio / room. It sounds real and live.

[Claude]

The 5.1 surround SACDs of late 50's Columbia jazz sessions (Kind of Blue, Time out) are made from 3-track not quadro tapes.

The engineers have put the 3 tracks on the left, right and center channels and added some artificial sound to the rear channels, supposed to add some natural-sounding room reverb. It is not true surround, as with "In a silent way" or "Headhunters".

[gregk]

Originally posted by mjb


Have you heard Kind of Blue in 5.1?

I remember quadraphonic sound. It was not "natural." This version, apart from the remarkable warmth & clarity, provides an ambience that comes as close as I can imagine to being in the studio / room. It sounds real and live.

Yes, Kind of Blue in surround is exactly the disc I was thinking of when I said that. Sounds very unnatural to me. The stereo SACD sounds great though. Makes me wish Columbia would simply go ahead and do the rest of Miles' catalog in SACD

[dwatts]

--LOL-- Coming monumentally late to this discussion, surely there is nothing to add other than a personal opinion.

1. SACD sounds better.

2. But it needs new equipment, and I'd need that in my living room, in my car, and in my computers. So I'd have to buy FOUR units. OR - I can buy a CD and play it anywhere I want.

3. The discs cost too much.

4. The disc selection is still pathetic.

5. My only issue with CD is their running time - 80 minutes sucks.

6. It seems they're only just coming out with CD's that fully exploit the medium. Perhaps because CD's are the limiting factor, it's in the lousy masters that have been used. Not jazz, of course, but the latest Jethro Tull reissues are an example of this. They soud amazing, why'd I have to wait so long for them? Madness.

7. Music copying has virtually killed the amrket just as a new format comes along. The mentality has changed. People care less about extra quality as they do about the fact that most of the CD quality music they get is FREE.

[Greg]

1. SACD sounds better.

Shouldn't that be all that matters, when it comes to music?

2. But it needs new equipment, and I'd need that in my living room, in my car, and in my computers. So I'd have to buy FOUR units. OR - I can buy a CD and play it anywhere I want.

Hybrid SACDs play in any CD player. If you see a single-layer SACD you want, and don't have enough CDs to listen to in your car, and both computers, make red book copies of the SACD. Frankly, there are no car or PC-compatible SACD players, so you can't get those even if you wanted to.

3. The discs cost too much.

I just ordered one for $8.38 from cduniverse.com. I routinely buy them for less than I paid for CDs 10-15 years ago when I was making a lot less money. The value and enjoyment I get out of SACD makes it a no brainer. True, in the first couple years of the format's rollout, they routinely cost $19-$25 and I was happy to pay the premium as an early adopter. Now those same discs can be had for less than $14 in almost all cases. And on ebay, a Glenn Gould Bach SACD recently sold for less then $2.

4. The disc selection is still pathetic.

That's why it's important to support the dozens of titles that are worth owning on SACD--to show the labels that we want more. Whining about the disc selection does no good. Money talks and you vote with your money. Or at the very least, contact the labels and tell them you're interested in SACD but you want to see a bigger selection. FWIW, UMG/Verve is issuing several worthy titles in the coming weeks, including six Oscar Peterson recordings from the '60s, Basie, Coltrane, Derek and the Dominos, a pair of albums each by Eric Clapton and the Allman Bros and Steely Dan's first six albums.
http://consumers.umusic.com/sacd/future.html

5. My only issue with CD is their running time - 80 minutes sucks.

We all listen to one track at a time. It's difficult to imagine anyone listening to 80 minutes of music before they have a chance to get up. Unless you're physically handicapped, putting on a new disc every 40-80 minutes is not a problem. It's even conducive to selecting music that best fits your mood.

6. It seems they're only just coming out with CD's that fully exploit the medium. Perhaps because CD's are the limiting factor, it's in the lousy masters that have been used. Not jazz, of course, but the latest Jethro Tull reissues are an example of this. They soud amazing, why'd I have to wait so long for them? Madness.

Some CDs sound good. Some don't. SACD features better technology and the sound goes beyond what CD can provide.

7. Music copying has virtually killed the amrket just as a new format comes along. The mentality has changed. People care less about extra quality as they do about the fact that most of the CD quality music they get is FREE.

In spite of that, Sony and Philips introduced a format that offered higher quality in an age when consumers and the industry seem determined to sink into lower quality. Why did Sony/Philips take this chance? They were gambling on people like you, who know the difference between what sounds good and what sounds crappy. Unfortunately, you're more interested in whining than in supporting the quality format.

[Claude]

Here's an interesting post from the Audio Asylum on the current Sony SACD "strategy":

SONY - what do they know and what do they do next? (http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/174745.html)

[Kevin Bresnahan]

My new car, a Toyota Prius, will not play my hybrid SACDs. My new laptop at work, which has a DVD/CD-R combo drive, will not play my hybrid SACDs either. I used to think hybrid SACDs would allow me to upgrade my music collection painlessly but the fact that my car and PC can't play them, means I have to keep both versions in my collection to do so. Not good.

Something that just happened that has me worried is that Columbia just released Aerosmith's latest, "Honkin' On Bobo" as a plain-Jane CD. Not even an option for an SACD. This is not a good thing. I was counting on Sony to back up this format and I expected this to be offered as an SACD. I worry what this decision means to SACD. I would like to see this format continue.

Later,
Kevin

[Greg]

It is continuing, regardless of Sony. http://consumers.umusic.com/sacd/future.html
http://fantasyjazz.com/html/sacd.html

Even Gerald Wilson's latest, New Sounds New York, is being released on SACD soon.

I'm more concerned about Columbia's Duke, Mingus, Monk, Brubeck, etc. than about Aerosmith. But we may see the lot of it on SACD someday. Consumer interest and industry inroads on the pro side are steadily increasing.

[gregk]

Aerosmith???!!! anyway, what about the rest of the Dylan catalog? Sony isn't going to stop at those 15 I hope. It would be nice to have the rest of them reissued as SACD hybrids

[Greg]

Greg, did you get the George Harrison Live in Japan two-fer SACD? Some great stuff with Clapton on guitar and Best Buy had it mismarked as low as $9.99 for a while there. Great sound and great tunes. It was pretty cool to see the SACD logo next to the Capitol and EMI logos...could Beatles on SACD be on the horizon?

I don't need more Dylan but I'd be happy to see Sony release any SACD at this point--even Beyonce.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Originally posted by gregk
Aerosmith???!!!

Uh... yeah, Aerosmith... have you gone into a store lately? Aerosmith's latest, an all blues date, was released last week with a bombardment of advertising. It's actually pretty good if you like bluesy rock & roll. I wouldn't say it's "great" but it is good. The fact that it was released on Sony's Columbia label and it wasn't a hybrid is what has me wondering what's up. After James Carter's latest was released as a hybrid SACD and all those Dylan CDs, I figured they were going all out.

Later,
Kevin

[Greg]

It may make an appearence on SACD yet, Kevin. Aerosmith's previous studio album, their two-disc greatest hits and Toys in the Attic are all available on SACD. Hopefully you have Toys on SACD. If not, grab it.