|
|
|
I can’t work out why there seems to be so much resignation about the possible demise (that's how I see it anyway) of this format.
I just don’t get it. People, including me, are now being forced to shell out on 180 gram vinyls in order to enjoy classic albums.
So lets pretend you have the ears of EMI, Atlantic or whoever and they need convincing that they aren’t going to lose money on releasing those long awaited albums.
Here’s a few ideas of mine:
1) Announce releases as limited editions
2) Give SACD production and distribution to 3rd parties as in the vinyls market where we have/had people like Classic Records and Simply Vinyls
3) Sell them at a premium price. Some vinyls are selling at silly prices so why not accept that SACDs are not viable at current prices. This might tie in with idea 2).
Any better ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwood said:
I can’t work out why there seems to be so much resignation about the possible demise (that's how I see it anyway) of this format.
One reason for an apparently lacklustre market performance of the SACD format (despite the relatively healthy number of releases of my musical interest, Early Music) is that the format does not seem to have caught the notice or, if it has, the interest of reviewers in the general music press or even in the more influential record review magazines.
When CD came along, there was lots of excitement in magazines such as Gramophone (UK), Fanfare (USA) and Diapason (Fr). No such excitement has been in evidence in the pages of these magazines in relation to SACD.
Nowadays, when an SACD recording is reviewed, it is extremely rare for the reviewer to make any comment about the fact that it is an SACD and it is pretty clear that the vast majority of reviewers do not have SACD players (let alone multi-channel systems). I have read the occasional review over the years by music critics who said (sometimes with pride) that they do not have a Hi-Fi system but listen to their review discs on those all-in-one machines or the equivalent of a "boom-box".
So, I suppose I should not be surprised, only dismayed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Osbert Parsley said:
One reason for an apparently lacklustre market performance of the SACD format (despite the relatively healthy number of releases of my musical interest, Early Music) is that the format does not seem to have caught the notice or, if it has, the interest of reviewers in the general music press or even in the more influential record review magazines.
An interestic point. I recently attended a magazines conference and took home free magazines, one of which was the UK Classic FM magazine. I could not find a single mention of SACD even existing!
And yes, what happened to the HiFi press who from day one told us that CD could not ultimately match LP? Well I stopped buying HiFi mags since they stopped being passionate about driving developments. They are great if you want to buy a turntable.
|
|
|
Post by Claude May 22, 2008 (4 of 29)
|
|
Goodwood said:
I just don’t get it. People, including me, are now being forced to shell out on 180 gram vinyls in order to enjoy classic albums.
Most can also be enjoyed on CD, but it's true that the best mastering is often available on reissue LPs only.
But the Blue Note LP reissues by Acoustic Sounds, where the first batch of 25 titles will also become available on SACD, are a good sign. If EMI is ready to license some of their material to audiophile labels for SACD release, maybe others will be too.
Of course there needs to be small audiophile labels who take the risk of releasing SACDs. But with hybrids, I think the risk is not so high, because many audiophiles who don't own SACD players will buy them for the CD layer, which also benefits from superior mastering. IMHO, with old recordings, mastering quality is more important than the format.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Osbert Parsley said:
One reason for an apparently lacklustre market performance of the SACD format (despite the interest of reviewers in the general music press or even in the more influential record review magazines.
When CD came along, there was lots of excitement in magazines such as Gramophone (UK), Fanfare (USA) and Diapason (Fr). No such excitement has been in evidence in the pages of these magazines in relation to SACD.
Nowadays, when an SACD recording is reviewed, it is extremely rare for the reviewer to make any comment about the fact that it is an SACD and it is pretty clear that the vast majority of reviewers do not have SACD players (let alone multi-channel systems). I have read the occasional review over the years by music critics who said (sometimes with pride) that they do not have a Hi-Fi system but listen to their review discs on those all-in-one machines or the equivalent of a "boom-box".
So, I suppose I should not be surprised, only dismayed.
I think one of the reason of lack of interest by the hifi press is pretty obvious.
Money.
The majority of their income comes from advertising and partly due to Sonys horrific licensing fee for DSD etc many of the record companies and manufacturers decided not to be taken for a ride.
The second point is the general attitude of old Farts to quote Funkey.
The attitude of many of these older poor hearing and mainly gentlemen is that they were dragged into swapping over to CD.Most of them do not want change and would resist any movement for a change.Hence their reluctance to publish the subject for fear of losing customers in an already shrinking market.
This was quite evident at the Grammie which I suspect is getting closer to its demise.
Any attempts to discuss technology was counteracted by people with up 20 year old CD players and technical advice on how to appreciate cd ie " A decent glass of port or sherry."
If you look carefully at their reviews you will find most of them identical to the original Lp review.Surely that tells you how much effort and cost cutting is going on.
The main objection to sacd discs I found was the inability to copy the hirez layer.
|
|
|
Post by Claude May 22, 2008 (6 of 29)
|
|
"When CD came along, there was lots of excitement in magazines such as Gramophone (UK), Fanfare (USA) and Diapason (Fr). No such excitement has been in evidence in the pages of these magazines in relation to SACD."
You should not forget that CD was a true revolution compared to LP in terms of usability, durability and duration. So you can't compare the SACD launch with the CD introduction.
If in the early 80's instead of the CD there had only been a new LP technology with improved sound, there would not have been much excitement either, except in the strictly audiophile press. Gramophone (UK), Fanfare (USA) and Diapason (Fr) are not hifi magazines but music magazines.
In a way, SACD is similar to the Quadro LP in the 70's. Compared to the existing format, it offers little advantage to the mass market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, every two weeks Rolling Stone Magazine (don't laugh) has devoted considerable pages to the demise of the ordinary CD....massive layoffs among the major labels, etc, major acts gravitating toward either free downloads of their current albums or signing to mega concert tour conglomerates to distribute their music (e.g. Madonna). SACD is a very small niche market and perhaps if all albums had been released in the hybrid format FROM THE BEGINNING and did NOT cost a premium to produce, it might have survived as DVD multi-format players became more commonplace. There have also been a number of complaints that SACDs sounded NO better than their CD counterparts but as in all HIGH END, the superior SACD players (and some of them are stereo only) costing upward of $45,000 are a major turn-off whereas a not so extraordinary turntable costs considerably less and sounds better than a lot of mid-priced SACD players. And if the BIG acts, both classical and popular, got on the bandwagon in the beginning the outcome may have been more positive. Not to deviate, but I have been buying BLU-RAY discs from Amazon for $10-$15 a pop and now I am asked to shell out $30 for a BLUE NOTE Stereo SACD with a paltry 40 to 60 minute content?????I just purchased three SACDs from Japan, waited two months for delivery and paid US$93.00 (including yet another SACD Stereo Remaster of Sketches of Spain). Greed, indifference, too little too late all helped to contribute to the demise of SACD and DVD-A. Gear up as Neil Young has announced he will release his entire back catalog on BLU-RAY (which is essentially DVD-A with a higher storage capacity). And from what I've read, BLU-RAY is not exactly outselling DVD as SACD will never outsell CD. Mediocrity breeds Contempt but it is here to stay!
|
|
|
|
|
|
raffells said:
partly due to Sonys horrific licensing fee for DSD etc many of the record companies and manufacturers decided not to be taken for a ride.
Really? Do you have any figures for that?
I'm asking because (lacking enough audiophile record labels who license SACD publishing rights from the major record companies suggested above) I'd *love* to start such a company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Seventh Taylor said:
Really? Do you have any figures for that?
I'm asking because (lacking enough audiophile record labels who license SACD publishing rights from the major record companies suggested above) I'd *love* to start such a company.
Hi 7thT
Not sure it would be wise or advisable to quote figures Ive received per telephone calls.Suggest you email me direct.
The cost is confusing as to whether you are involing DVD, DVDA, SACD and or CD as the licensing fee varies.eg the DVD rights were $100 000 and that does not include DVDA I am not sure if they have reduced but I understand Sony did reduce some of their fees recently (
|
|
|
Post by Goodwood May 24, 2008 (10 of 29)
|
|
rammiepie said:
Not to deviate, but I have been buying BLU-RAY discs from Amazon for $10-$15 a pop and now I am asked to shell out $30 for a BLUE NOTE Stereo SACD with a paltry 40 to 60 minute content?????
I don't think it is deviating at all and I understand how frustrating this seems but those $10-$15 BLU-RAY discs are likeley to be selling in gazillions and feeding a lot of shareholders. The overall profits of those BLUE NOTE SACDs will be modest if not laughable to a larger corporation.
There is much material I wouldn't pay $5 for but there is also a wealth of material that I would gladly pay $30 for - if that's what it takes. Don't get me wrong, I will usually buy anything at the lowest cost I can but I know that small volume items so easily can become unviable.
|
|
