Thread: Is the SONY US SACD pressing plant slated to re~open its doors?

Posts: 188
Page: prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 19 next

Post by zeus August 8, 2010 (81 of 188)
bissie said:

+1, as I think the expression goes. This would interest me mightily. I mean, unique visitors, not me visiting the site 15 times daily...

This site gets 40K to 50K unique visitors per month.

Post by diw August 8, 2010 (82 of 188)
So we have 3 or 4 recordings mentioned on this thread that should be released on SACD. So if the label that owns them has had them out on CD for some time, they've sold most of the CD units that they're going to sell. So what would be a bargain basement price to license such a recording for limited SACD release on an independent label?

Post by The Seventh Taylor August 8, 2010 (83 of 188)
RWetmore said:

> SACD was improperly designed and improperly marketed from the start. The goal at the outset should have been niche market

You're misunderstanding me. There never was a mainstream market for hi-rez audio and there is never going to be. `

Why is it that over and over, SACD gets reduced to a high-resolution audio carrier? Why is multichannel audio overlooked again and again?

Obviously, had SACD been high-res stereo only, it were destined for a niche. In fact, that's how Sony had conceived it and that's why Philips (>100k employees, BTW) insisted on adding multichannel. Philips, at least the Consumer Electronics division, even more so than Sony, is not interested in niche markets.

Several years on we can conclude that that hasn't helped enough to expand the appeal beyond a niche market but it certainly has expanded it, to include people like me.

Post by RWetmore August 8, 2010 (84 of 188)
The Seventh Taylor said:

Why is it that over and over, SACD gets reduced to a high-resolution audio carrier? Why is multichannel audio overlooked again and again?

Obviously, had SACD been high-res stereo only, it were destined for a niche. In fact, that's how Sony had conceived it and that's why Philips (>100k employees, BTW) insisted on adding multichannel. Philips, at least the Consumer Electronics division, even more so than Sony, is not interested in niche markets.

Several years on we can conclude that that hasn't helped enough to expand the appeal beyond a niche market but it certainly has expanded it, to include people like me.

Well I don't believe multichannel has expanded it. I believe multichannel has actually indirectly hurt it by watering down the resolution, which has had the effect of pushing it away from most of the 2 channel audiophile market - a market that has in large part found SACD to be only marginally better than regular redbook CD (still not equal to or better than analog and LP).

And the reason multichannel is overlooked over and over again is because it is a way, way smaller niche than the 2 channel audiophile and enthusiast market.

Post by The Seventh Taylor August 8, 2010 (85 of 188)
RWetmore said:

...the reason multichannel is overlooked over and over again is because it is a way, way smaller niche than the 2 channel audiophile and enthusiast market.

I doubt that. I just think the mass market has embraced DVD-Video rather than SACD for multichannel music.

Post by Arthur August 8, 2010 (86 of 188)
audioholik said:

I know what you mean I just don't see the economic justification for big corporations to target a niche market, they could sell CDs to all of their customers, or sell CDs to 97% customers and a hi-rez format to the remaining 3%.

If the price difference between CD and the other format wouldn't be significant it wouldn't make any sense for them, as they wouldn't generate much more profit than going the easy route (selling CDs to all of their customers).

You don't see the economic justification of targeting a niche market?

Their business is off, what? 20% More? I haven't looked at statistics for a few years, but in the couple of years before I got out of the industry, they had fallen by about half. It has to have been even more since!

And these labels are going to the trouble of actually recording in hi-rez! Why wouldn't they go to the trouble of trying to salvage what little they could?!

I know I am among the 3% for the labels who try. But I'm NOT among the 100% for the labels who don't!

In the years I worked at Tower, it was always interesting to me that classical music nationally represented about 3% of sales, but at Tower it was generally around 10%. And from my experience those 10% in dollars weren't coming from 10% in buyers. It was a MUCH smaller group of buyers - maybe 2 or 3% - who were spending very large sums!

Those buyers are the ones the majors have written off as times grow difficult. They are the very people you would think any sensible business-person would consider their core target buyer.

UNLESS of course you are counting on 10 records all year making up 97% of your profits!

Post by Merganser August 8, 2010 (87 of 188)
zeus said:

This site gets 40K to 50K unique visitors per month.

That is impressive.

Post by audioholik August 9, 2010 (88 of 188)
RWetmore said:

Well I don't believe multichannel has expanded it. I believe multichannel has actually indirectly hurt it by watering down the resolution, which has had the effect of pushing it away from most of the 2 channel audiophile market - a market that has in large part found SACD to be only marginally better than regular redbook CD (still not equal to or better than analog and LP).

RWetmore, did you have a chance to compare the new Daphnis et Chloe (Levine/BSO) SACD recorded in DSD with the Living Stereo version sourced from an analog tape?

BTW, when you say that people find SACD to be only marginally better than CD, are you talking about native DSD recordings or SACDs sourced from 16-24/44.1k - 48kHz pcm masters?

Post by Karlosak August 9, 2010 (89 of 188)
RWetmore said:

...a market that has in large part found SACD to be only marginally better than regular redbook CD (still not equal to or better than analog and LP).

The sad fact is, that SACD can never surpass an inferior format, though with artifacts pleasing to the human ear. For the target group of analog lovers and vinyl junkies SACD will never "get there".

There was an experiment conducted some time ago (I cannot find the link now) that compared SOTA vinyl playback to A/D & D/A converters inserted into the playback chain and to the original digital file (the LP pressing was sourced from high-res PCM). Outcome: the majority of listeners preferred the first setup. Differences between the first and second setup were negligible. The "purest" third setup scored last. Go figure...

Post by Paul Clark August 9, 2010 (90 of 188)
The Seventh Taylor said:

Why is it that over and over, SACD gets reduced to a high-resolution audio carrier? Why is multichannel audio overlooked again and again?

It was certainly marketed as a multichannel medium.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO42r3FosN0

Page: prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 19 next

new post

primephonic