SACD vs DVD-A (Business/Marketing reason) [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : SACD vs DVD-A (Business/Marketing reason)



Dolby
08-17-2005, 12:39 PM
Hi,

I don't want to start another heated SACD vs DVD-A debate on sound quality and watermarks etc etc I simply want to ask your opinion of who SHOULD win, based on business reasons.

I think peronally that SACD should have had this in the bag. I mean, It was developed by two electronics giants - the same two that invented the CD in the first place. One of them also owns one of the largest record labels, namely Sony Music. The disc could be played on any CD discman/home based/car based system as well - just about any system out there at the moment! It doesn't need a monitor/TV set to use either.

Sony and Philips could manufacture the hardware chip for SACD into EVERYTHING it makes - DVD players, CD players, mini systems, midi systems, PS3 etc The software isn't THAT much more either - and they could have subsidied it slightly to make it even cheaper. That's my feeling ...

topspeed
08-17-2005, 12:55 PM
Rumor is Sony has shelved SACD development while the BluRay/HD-DVD format war heats-up. There was no Sony SACD booth at the CES, the first time that has happened since they launched. DVD-A has the luxury of market recognition because of the first three letters. I'd venture to say that John Q. Public has no idea what DVD-A is and mistakenly thinks they can play them in any 'ol DVD player. Of course, you can get hi-rez players for next to nothing now so it hardware isn't the problem. In addition, the lack of promotion and quality software is only partially to blame. The tsunami you see on the horizon is the market's continuing shift to lo-rez, downloaded MP3's.

Who should win? Who cares? Universal players can be had for little more than a bill. See all those iPods? The market could care less about hi-res sound. Even though I just bought a universal, I really bought it for it's video processing w/ the hi-rez decoding coming in as a bonus. Truth be told, I'm not holding out a lot of hope for either format.

markw
08-17-2005, 01:58 PM
...neither of 'em will amount to anything more than a fart in a windstorm. The purported advantages are not worth his time/money and effort.

This isn't like the switch from vinyl and VHS tapes to colorful bejeweled 5 1/4" discs where the improvement in convenience and sound/picture were no brainers.

If market penetration is a major factor in their continuance on th sellingfloor, then I don't put too much faith in either one.

...unless they discontinue the old formats, in which case they will be royally pissed.

RGA
08-17-2005, 06:11 PM
Hi,

I don't want to start another heated SACD vs DVD-A debate on sound quality and watermarks etc etc I simply want to ask your opinion of who SHOULD win, based on business reasons.

I think peronally that SACD should have had this in the bag. I mean, It was developed by two electronics giants - the same two that invented the CD in the first place. One of them also owns one of the largest record labels, namely Sony Music. The disc could be played on any CD discman/home based/car based system as well - just about any system out there at the moment! It doesn't need a monitor/TV set to use either.

Sony and Philips could manufacture the hardware chip for SACD into EVERYTHING it makes - DVD players, CD players, mini systems, midi systems, PS3 etc The software isn't THAT much more either - and they could have subsidied it slightly to make it even cheaper. That's my feeling ...

Of course they could put it in all their cheap players -- but SACD and DVD-A are kind of a funny thing. CD was targetted to the masses not the high end -- most of the high end when CD came out sneered at the lousy sounding CD format -- but CD had convenience on it's side and size and a host of other very obvious advantages -- and they;ve improved such that even die hard vinylphiles own some sort of CD player -- if you love music you have to buy a cd player because you just can't get Loreena McKennit on Vinyl and paying $50.00Cdn to get Madonna "Ray of Light" on Vinyl when you can pay $9.99 on cd when the thing is a digital transfer anyway --- well that's tough for many to keep spending this way.

So CD is a success. Take Laserdisc. It was vastly superior to VHS and Beta and it came out 1 year BEFORE CD players. I bought one of these players and several movies - it never really took off as many people have never even heard of it know nothing about it and lookj at you like a deer in headlights -- no different that SACD I might add. LaserDisc was advertised to the high end audio video market and this market is a tiny tiny fraction of the movie home entertainment market at that time.

back in the laserdisc Days Players were more than double the price of cd players, and the movies were 5 times more expensive - few to no places rented them. High end buyers bought them.

Fast forward to DVD. Expensive for a while -- but not any longer. you can buy DVD player for $39.00 at Wal-mart and a whole surround system for $199.00 and a once $1599.00 Sony 27 inch tv can be had for $349.00.Cdn. $499.00 for the Wega.

Someone made an error in the marketing business plan thinking that because there is such a big boon in Home theater that meant there was a big boon in Audiophiles or videophiles. That was the first mistake. Most people simply don;t care -- if it's dirt cheap they'll buy it and if it's convenient they;ll buy it -- See iPod/mp3.

SACD and DVD Audio ONLY players tanked royally. The only people who would be interested in these things are Audiophiles - not EVERYBODY who just so happens to have a surround sound sytem (and the other idiotic thing was that so many of those SACD players were only two-channel. The Average Joe Six-pack probably listens to Church and hall mode.

SACD and DVD-A SHOULD have been targetted to ME and people like ME who if you convince me in your demo room that it's better then I will pony up and BUY it some way somehow. LaserDisc convinced me despite the pain in the ass Flip the disc - it had letterbox (which tape did not) it had better picture and better sound (though that was not as big a draw to me ast the widescreen and the running commentaries.

SACD - Some titles were better than others but the selection is crap and the transfers or remasters in 2 channel have not been ovelry convincing and some that a number of stores keep trotting out like the Eagles are positively dreadful. This is ok too -- I decided that well Sony isn't that great anyway so i'll wait a while for when the better CD player makers get on board they'll raise the bar and I'll get one then. That never really happened. So now they get a token placement in the odd DVD player - joe Sixpack still doesn;t know what the hell it is, no one is SEEKING them -- the store demos were not convincing.

I have a feeling most SACD player and software owners have SACD by accident. They went in to Sony and bought the $150.00 DVD player to watch MOVIES not listen to music and for the progressive scan feature and happened to get a SACD chip in the player and then they HAPPENED to buy a CD that also happens to play SACD...like HDCD I happen to own a few HDCDs but I didn't look for it. The only way they can sell SACD is by making hybrids - and now Sony may stop doingt that even.

Selling superior audio recordings to non audiophiles is a dead idea -- trying to convert the masses who mostly buy bottom of the line receivers with a Magnaviox surround system into audiophiles is a waste because why would they pay $24.00 for a SACD when the CD is $11.00 and then they can't copy it for twelve of their friends either. OOPS.

And the problem is further compounded that the Audiophile community is not necessarily filled with videophiles. Selling superior audio Quality to people who don't necessarily have or ever want a surround sound system is tough because we Audiophiles are kept beaten over the head that we need matching surround speakers. So RGA Audio Note who contemplates SACD says well I need to get a Pair of Audio ntoe E's for the corners and use my J's as center speakers and then at minimum get some AN K's for the rear -- This alone is a $10,000US upgrade including taxes. I then have to buy a dreaded receiver and if i don;t do that then you may as wlel add another $10,000.00 in appropriate amplication.

Or I can do what joe Sixpack did and buy a magnavox and RCA receiver for cheap -- and a SACD player and then I groan because no matter how good the SACD player could be it would be railroaded by the rest of the system. I have spoken to so many audiophiles who even if SACD offerred a prospect they might be interested in the financial upgrade is positively enormous. Couple that with the poor store demos, the lack of titles then I as an audiophile decided to simply wait -- all the magazines kept saying one would win -- so I figure as do many audiophiles that we'll wait. Problem is that with everyone waiting -- SACD slows production.

Having said all this I have made a commitment to ensuring that my next DVD player will play these formats -- because I have heard some discs that sounded better than the Redbook CD just in two channel -- But I also wonder if the cd player portion was deleiberately made to sound worse -- to make SACD sound better.

I'm not against Higher resolotion I welcome something better than CD -- my comments are strictly about the failure to properly read the market or even see the RIGHT market -- and now SACD is kind of screwed themselves up -- I doubt they can recover.

Dolby
08-17-2005, 11:02 PM
Thank you for your input.

I think you hit the nail on the head with buying the technology by 'accident'. I class myself as Joe Public. I'm 25 years old, and - due to finances at the moment - have an average machine (MBQuart , Onkyo, Marantz).

I was in the market for a DVD player a few months back with a very good picture/sound/connections, and came across the Sony DVP-NS955 DVD/SACD player. It was on a 50% anniversary discount at the shop, and ultimatley ended up costing slightly more than a standard DVD player. I bought the player for this reason.

Since I had the hardware available, I decided to buy an SACD (any SACD) to simply test. I simply loved it! Not because of the high sampling rate, or high resolution/quality - but simply for the 5.1 mix that sounded amazing on my system. The best part was that I could take the SACD to work and listen to standard 2-channel on my car C dplayer.

I then got a Marantz DV6400 universal machine and decided to purchase a DVD-A. Again, I loved it purely for the 5.1 mix! Not the 192khz/24 bit - simply the mix! In fact, if I listen on my DVD video player, I get the same satisfaction. By the way - it was the Eagles - Hotel California and to me, it sounds brilliant!

To me, SACD should have worked and was badly marketed.

Pyrrho
08-23-2005, 09:02 AM
Of course they could put it in all their cheap players -- but SACD and DVD-A are kind of a funny thing. CD was targetted to the masses not the high end --...

You must either be young or have a very poor memory. When CD came out, it was marketed as a high end product, and was priced accordingly. It took a while before there were any CD players priced below $1000, which made them far from a product for the masses, particularly when one factors in inflation for what $1000 back then would be equivalent to today.


...
Take Laserdisc. It was vastly superior to VHS and Beta and it came out 1 year BEFORE CD players. I bought one of these players and several movies - it never really took off as many people have never even heard of it know nothing about it and lookj at you like a deer in headlights -- no different that SACD I might add. LaserDisc was advertised to the high end audio video market and this market is a tiny tiny fraction of the movie home entertainment market at that time.
...

Laserdisc never took off because it was ALWAYS expensive, both for the players and the movies themselves. The disc size and weight required a much more robust mechanism than a CD or DVD transport, and the discs themselves were much more expensive to make. These factors kept prices out of reach for most people. Most people could easily see the improvement in the picture, but were unwilling to spend a fortune for a player and for each and every disc.

As for SACD and DVD-A, there are many factors keeping them from catching on, including:

1) Two competing formats lead to confusion, and although "universal" players are common now, many manufacturers still refuse to embrace both.
2) There are not very many discs available in either format.
3) These is no convenience factor helping either one, unlike CD, which was far superior in convenience to anything that existed before.
4) There have been too many efforts to keep people from being able to make copies, and presently, people are accustomed to being able to make digital copies of digital sources.
5) Many people are content with the sound of CDs, and many are content with things like DPL II for surround.
6) Surround formats generally require sitting down and just listening to them for them to be better than two channel stereo recordings, which can be heard with headphones. Many people use portables, and SACD and DVD-A are not generally thought to be an advantage for such use.

There may be other reasons, but those are reasons that I can think of off the top of my head.

Pyrrho
08-23-2005, 09:06 AM
Hi,

I don't want to start another heated SACD vs DVD-A debate on sound quality and watermarks etc etc I simply want to ask your opinion of who SHOULD win, based on business reasons.

I think peronally that SACD should have had this in the bag. I mean, It was developed by two electronics giants - the same two that invented the CD in the first place. One of them also owns one of the largest record labels, namely Sony Music. The disc could be played on any CD discman/home based/car based system as well - just about any system out there at the moment! It doesn't need a monitor/TV set to use either.

Sony and Philips could manufacture the hardware chip for SACD into EVERYTHING it makes - DVD players, CD players, mini systems, midi systems, PS3 etc The software isn't THAT much more either - and they could have subsidied it slightly to make it even cheaper. That's my feeling ...

Philips and Sony are not really trying to make SACD succeed. If they really wanted it to succeed, they should release EVERYTHING they have on SACD disc, so that there would be a decent selection of titles. As it is, they put only a few titles out, so they guarantee that the format will never gain much acceptance.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-23-2005, 12:54 PM
From a recording engineer side SACD was a success. It was the only format that sounded like analog, but had none of its drawbacks.

From a marketing side, it was a failure because of paranoia. Both sides went to great lengths to copy protect and control their product. DVD-A was a failure in that area as its encryption was broken before it could come to market. Neither one could easily be integrated easily into any system. 6 analog outputs was to cumbersome to hookup, the bass management was too crude, and for SACD required the conversion to PCM to happen. This defeated the whole purpose of the SACD format.

You also have to take into account that nobody sits down, turns off the lights, and LISTENS to music anymore. Neither Sony or Warner took into consideration consumers listening habits. They based all of their market research on the CD platform which is portable, transfereable, and easily manipulated to each consumer taste(playlists)

I think DVD-A is cooked, however I do think that Sony will include SACD in their BlueRay format, so I don't think SACD life is quite over yet if this format succeeds(thought I doubt it will).

RGA
08-23-2005, 01:45 PM
Phyrro.

Yes CD was targeted briefly as high enders but not not high end audiophiles -- there is a difference. Most products hit market high priced and then fall like a stone. People with money overpay for the technology first because they have a need to be first (Type A personality syndrome). They buy into the NEW revolutionary LOL technology of perfect sound forever. I'm sure Sony and Phillips were hoping to conver Audiophiles but really we're probably 1% or less of the population so I doubt they really care.

I know some Audiophiles fall into both caring about music and need to have it first camps but they went back to vinyl...which is why despite the fact that vinyl is supposedly dead it hangs in there.

The laserdisc was only expensive because Pioneer who championed it so strong was not supported by many other companies -- and none of the big ones in any serious way -- same for the video manufacturers. Plus I don't think the CD makers were thrilled to see LP sized discs which would have people thinking LP.

I believe i purchased my first player in 1988 it was a six pack Pioneer for $299.00. it took a while to come doewn but so did DVD with player all over $700 and now as little as $39.00 -- I saw one at $18.99 on sale.

SACD was $5k and now it's a toss in on $150.00 DVD players. I don;t see any Linn or other True High end makers supporting it because most of them think it sounds like crap. I also agree with your list. If you have a multi-channel system already it might be a good thing -- but if you use a receiver as your main source of amplification then IMO it doesn;t matter if you're using SACD -- it's going to be hampered by the receiver too much for me to want to buy in. The two channel audiophiles are less likely to go in -- but as I say the recording re-mastering i've heard on a few might be worthwhile to me but with the terrible selection and not much increase in the 5 years+ the format has been out is not impressing me. CD in 7 years took over all outlets from LP and had every single title ion the format. A&B sound the second biggest chain for music in BC maybe has 40 SACD titles and Future Shop owned by Best Buy has ZERO. with a small rack of DVD-A. DVD-A was supposed to be the DEAD technology and yet it's winning here -- probably because it says DVD. Actually Linn does have SACD capaility tossed in on its new players apparently. But no dedicated units.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-23-2005, 02:21 PM
. I don;t see any Linn or other True High end makers supporting it because most of them think it sounds like crap. . Actually Linn does have SACD capaility tossed in on its new players apparently. But no dedicated units.

RGA,
Sometimes you really surprise me. Bel Canto offers a $8900 universal player

http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/1103/04.belcanto.shtml

Linn also offers one

http://www.audiorevolution.com/news/0402/10.sacd.shtml

Esoteric offers one

http://www.teac.com/esoteric/NewEsoteric/X-01.html

Simaudio has one for $7200

http://www.hometheatermag.com/dvdplayers/705simaudio/

I could on and on. You comments on the sound quality of SACD and DVD-A are way off mark.

RGA
08-23-2005, 10:29 PM
Thanks for the correction.

I don't consider many of those high end just expensive and the Linn was not listed on their web-site that I could find an actual dedicated SACD player. I didn't think I made any off the mark sound quality assessments( I have just read a number of high end makers not being impressed with the sound. It is an opinion regardless if one doesn't like them then one doesn't. Most of the ones I've heard were not the least bit impressive and a few I've heard are quite good. But the player doing both formats may not have had an up to snuff cd player portion or the recording of the cd part was done poorly for all I know. I'd like a few more opportunities to hear some well set-up SACD systems but since no one carries them and the few place who do run receivers or solid state amplification through a slime line design home theater and fashion created loudspeaker it appears my wait to hear one will extend to January when i go to the CES (if I have student loan money left).

This stuff has been around now for a number of years and has tanked. Quality or not - the masses don't ccare and two channel auduiophiles don't care or were not impressed by auditions to jump on it in any kind of tangible way. I still don't see too many "dedicated' SACD players - I see none. The guy considering spending 7k on a high end NAME cd player which also happens to have SACD still doesn't make it clear to me they're buying SACD FOR SACD. Maybe they want a great cd player with SACD to try it out -- but then if it were a success there may actually be titles.

JSE
08-24-2005, 06:27 AM
Who will win? Neither. They are both essentially dead. Except for maybe SACD as Sir. T mentioned maybe being included in Blue Ray. But SACD and DVD-A as we know them are dying fast. I give each format another year or so before the official plug is pulled.

Just look at the shevles at Best Buy or Circuit City or any music store. The selection is disappearing. I have not really seen many new releases. Some but not many.

Also, DVD-A and SACD are not convenient like CD or MP3. You can really only play them on a compatible player in your home. You can't play them in your car, you can't burn a copy for your car or download it to your iPod and 99.99% of the buying public out there don't have compatible players and have not idea what DVD-A and SACD are. Quality aside, MP3 and CD are just better easier to use formats for the masses. Again sound quality aside, DVD-A and SACD just got caught in the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" scenario. They built a better mouse trap but just made it too complicated and too hard to use for the masses.


Oh and Sir T. I seem to remember you "jumping my arse" a couple of years ago when I said DVD-A and SACD would never make it. You thought I was crazy. I would just like to take this opportunity to say......

I TOLD YOU SO! Ha! :D :p :D


JSE

sam9
08-24-2005, 08:24 AM
If they die, it will be from th manufacturers'i own lack of good sense. DVD-As often/usually need a monitor to navigate - comparred to CD's this is distinctly non-user friendly. Sony won't allow digital output of SACDs and refuses to build a universal player under their own name.

Only SACD sufferes from lack of copatible players. Nearly any home with a TV has a DVD player. DVD-A have DD5.1 and/or DTS tracks as well.

I have found it very hard(impossible, actually) to tell any difference between the DVD-A track and the alterate DD-5.1/DTS tracks. In fact after, doing some listening, I decided not to bother buying a DVD-A player because the results were just as good (very good) listening to the alternate tracks. My impesssion is the DVD-A industry plays down the DD-5.1 alternate track (presumably to encourage salles of new machines) to the extent that many people are unaware they already have playback capability in their DVD player. This certainly can't help media sales. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Before, SACD and DVD-A appeared there were DTS CD. These were (are if you can find one) very good although usually, except when the producers were having trouble with the aesthetic issues of multi-track presentation. (Much like early stereo LP, ans early CD issues had problems because the nuances of the new process were not yet understood well.) DTS CD were 24 bits with a high sample rate and played on existing equipment. They were a logical, cost effective way to get higher resolution and multichannels, but DTS the company wasn't up to the marketing task. The BS about "lossey compression" hurt them in the audiophile world desopite IMO it haveing no detrimental effect (except in some mind). Too bad. If they could have been as clever as Dolby in cassette days and got everybody to licence and use a common technology, we wouldn't be faced with the possibledeath hi-def multi-track music.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-24-2005, 09:44 AM
Oh and Sir T. I seem to remember you "jumping my arse" a couple of years ago when I said DVD-A and SACD would never make it. You thought I was crazy. I would just like to take this opportunity to say......

I TOLD YOU SO! Ha! :D :p :D


JSE

JSE! You just wait until I git a hold of you........I'm gonna.....I'm gonna...oooo I'm gonna tell you that you were half right. SACD is not quite dead, and I do not think it will die. I think it will be the audio side of BluRay. DVD-A is dead IMO, and I never thought it would survive. As you know I was never a supporter of DVD-A because to these ears it still sounds like digital audio. I was hoping the SACD would take off, but it didn't happen. I thought Sony would agressively push this format, and they did not.

So JSE, you can stand on the edge of the barn and crow, but you only get half as long to crow. LOL

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-24-2005, 09:54 AM
I have found it very hard(impossible, actually) to tell any difference between the DVD-A track and the alterate DD-5.1/DTS tracks. In fact after, doing some listening, I decided not to bother buying a DVD-A player because the results were just as good (very good) listening to the alternate tracks. My impesssion is the DVD-A industry plays down the DD-5.1 alternate track (presumably to encourage salles of new machines) to the extent that many people are unaware they already have playback capability in their DVD player. This certainly can't help media sales. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

.

Wow, this is a heavy statement. I can easily tell a DVD-A 5.1 track from a DD 5.1, especially sense I know exactly what to listen for. Dolby Digital is not a music codec, and that is apparent before DVD-A. Dolby Digital sounds hard, has a digital glaze that is very audible, lacks air and openess, and doesn't handle the timbre of acoustical musical instruments very well. IMO there is far less difference between Dts and DVD-A, than DD.

RGA
08-24-2005, 10:08 AM
Who will win? Neither. They are both essentially dead. Except for maybe SACD as Sir. T mentioned maybe being included in Blue Ray. But SACD and DVD-A as we know them are dying fast. I give each format another year or so before the official plug is pulled.

Just look at the shevles at Best Buy or Circuit City or any music store. The selection is disappearing. I have not really seen many new releases. Some but not many.

JSE

The masses won't support because the masses are not audiophiles -- see MP3 as proof. The support convenience over sound quality CD over Vinyl. Though CD got much better over the years.

SACD has not even been taken well by audiophiles -- most audiophiles are TWO channel folks -- SACD is a multi-channel format to actually be appreciably noticeably better. Too many of the SACD releases SUCK donkey balls. For something to be sold as superior you need to make it better consistantly. Looking at the reviews in one of the big Brit magazines on SACD reviews of albums and seeing a steady diet of 3/5 ratings for sound quality while the vinyls are getting 5/5 or worse reviewing a cd or SACD and saying it sounds good blah blah blah - but if you an find a good shape Vinyl of it you're better off is not helpful. Even if the reviewer is WRONG the point is that also isn't helping people get on board.

JSE
08-24-2005, 10:48 AM
JSE! You just wait until I git a hold of you........I'm gonna.....I'm gonna...oooo I'm gonna tell you that you were half right. SACD is not quite dead, and I do not think it will die. I think it will be the audio side of BluRay. DVD-A is dead IMO, and I never thought it would survive. As you know I was never a supporter of DVD-A because to these ears it still sounds like digital audio. I was hoping the SACD would take off, but it didn't happen. I thought Sony would agressively push this format, and they did not.

So JSE, you can stand on the edge of the barn and crow, but you only get half as long to crow. LOL


I can live with that. :D Do you think Blue Ray will have the same acceptance problems as SACD and DVD-A?

JSE

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-24-2005, 11:25 AM
I can live with that. :D Do you think Blue Ray will have the same acceptance problems as SACD and DVD-A?

JSE

If they release these formats with the same piracy fears they had for SACD and DVD-A it WILL fail. If they release these formats with a requirement that that player be connected to a phone jack, it WILL fail. I one side of my hopes both fail, so they will stop all of these protective steps that make the formats inconvient to use.

topspeed
08-24-2005, 11:57 AM
SACD has not even been taken well by audiophiles -- most audiophiles are TWO channel folks -- SACD is a multi-channel format to actually be appreciably noticeably better. Too many of the SACD releases SUCK donkey balls. For something to be sold as superior you need to make it better consistantly. SACD has multi-layers; CD, SACD 2.1, and SACD multi. Therefore, SACD can be enjoyed by 2 channel folks (such as yours truly) as well as in multi.

I just got my universal player and only have 2 SACD's, so naturally I can't say if they all sound like vomit. However, I did buy John Mayer's Heavier Things on SACD for the sole purpose of comparing in to my rbcd version (which, along with Room for Squares, is an exceptional recording by anyone's standard). I can definitely hear a difference between the SACD and RBCD versions. The kick drum, for example, has a much fuller, weightier sound to it. While I try to avoid audiophile terminology, it really does have more air around it. IOW, it sounds more like a real kick drum. I will say, that I don't like the multi-channel at all as I find the surrounds to be too overbearing, but this may be because I haven't completely dialed it in yet (still waiting for my DVE disc). My opinion may change after calibration is complete.

JSE
08-24-2005, 11:58 AM
If they release these formats with the same piracy fears they had for SACD and DVD-A it WILL fail. If they release these formats with a requirement that that player be connected to a phone jack, it WILL fail. I one side of my hopes both fail, so they will stop all of these protective steps that make the formats inconvient to use.

If Sony stays true to their track record, Blue Ray is history! :mad:

How many truly successful formats has Sony ever had? Mini Disc, Beta, SACD and their theater surround system never really caught on. Although I think Beta might make a late surge? :p I don't really have a lot of knowledge in this area but it seems like they are always the loser in format wars. I could be totally wrong though.

JSE

sam9
08-24-2005, 12:27 PM
Wow, this is a heavy statement. I can easily tell a DVD-A 5.1 track from a DD 5.1, especially sense I know exactly what to listen for. Dolby Digital is not a music codec, and that is apparent before DVD-A. Dolby Digital sounds hard, has a digital glaze that is very audible, lacks air and openess, and doesn't handle the timbre of acoustical musical instruments very well. IMO there is far less difference between Dts and DVD-A, than DD.

The biggest potential deficite of DD5.1 is the way the center channel is treated. Call it automatic gain riding foe lack of a better term. Very few music production use the center channel. I'm not sure why, but they don't. Maybe they figure a lot of us use a phontom center anyway, maybe they don't feel, confident on how it should be used. If the center channel were present, DD5.1's treatment of would probably be identifiable. As for "digital glaze" etc - I'm not very good with all those audiophile adjective because I find it so hard for people to use them consistently. Anyway, I do not hear them and if that means I've got a tin ear so be it.

Actually, I've been trying to hear "digital glaze" ever since I bought my first CD player and so far all I've found is recordings made in the vinyl era that in the early days of digital were poorly transfered to CD. In fact the best thing about SACD and DVD-A is it has provided motivation to go back and do a good remastering.

Wireworm5
08-24-2005, 06:24 PM
I've always admired Sony for their leadship role in inovation and invention. The Trinitron tv if I remember correctly, they did not jump on the conventional tv bandwagon, but instead took their time and developed a better tv. Then Beta, cd, sacd and now Blu-ray. Unfortunately with their desire to capture the market with their superior product and not share their technology these expensive formats were out manoveured by inferior product marketing
In the past you paid extra for the Sony name, and in the case of my car stereo not necassary a better sound, you knew at least you had a reliable product. Not anymore its seems to me their quality control has slipped. I fear sacd, Blu-ray will fail for the same reasons as beta, only this time with the added lack of reliability of Sony products, which once was a proud name.

Dolby
08-24-2005, 10:29 PM
JSE - you can play SACDs in your car, rip to MP3 and play on any CD player, because most SACDs have the CD layer which enables all of this. Also, as you mentioned, there is no monitor required for SACD, which makes is very convenient! As point out, it's got a multi-channel and stereo track - which is perfect for 2 channel audiophiles. In summary : it's convenient, plays everywhere, and has all the mixes to make everyone happy. Theoretically, it's better. Hence why I think SACD should have 'won' the format war easily - had everything been done correctly on Sonys part,

As Sam9 pointed out, the DD5.1 track does sound the same as the DVD-A track. The reason? Speaking for myself, I have an AV system with mediocre equipment. I'm sure on this level of equipment it is difficult to tell the diference, but as one movies up in the hi-fi world, the differences will be obvious. Again, had I know the sounded so identical, I would have kept my standard DVD player and not bought into DVD-A.

JSE
08-25-2005, 06:07 AM
JSE - you can play SACDs in your car, rip to MP3 and play on any CD player, because most SACDs have the CD layer which enables all of this.

So..... why not just buy the CD or MP3 to begin with? You and I and other "audio enthusiasts" can see the benefit but like I mentioned earlier, the general masses don't want an SACD that can only be played on a SACD player even if they can rip it to MP3 where it becomes just another MP3 quality music file. Why spend more to get the same thing? Again, I'm saying this from a general consumer's point of view. Most people don't care about Hi Rez because they are completely happy with their CD and MP3 music. That's were SACD and DVD-A fail. If it ain't easy, consumers will not embrace it. One day the industry will realize that it really is not about the ultimate in sound but rather the ultimate is convenience and value, for most.

Now, if there was one universal format that included Hi Rez,standard redbook and maybe even video plus you did not need a special player all at the same price as a CD, then maybe it would be widely accepted. But, we all know Sony and other makers are to gready to let that happen.

JSE

markw
08-25-2005, 08:02 AM
Most people don't care about Hi Rez because they are completely happy with their CD and MP3 music. That's were SACD and DVD-A fail. If it ain't easy, consumers will not embrace it. One day the industry will realize that it really is not about the ultimate in sound but rather the ultimate is convenience and value, for most.wot 'e said...

Hawkeye
08-25-2005, 10:46 AM
So..... why not just buy the CD or MP3 to begin with? You and I and other "audio enthusiasts" can see the benefit but like I mentioned earlier, the general masses don't want an SACD that can only be played on a SACD player even if they can rip it to MP3 where it becomes just another MP3 quality music file. Why spend more to get the same thing? Again, I'm saying this from a general consumer's point of view. Most people don't care about Hi Rez because they are completely happy with their CD and MP3 music. That's were SACD and DVD-A fail. If it ain't easy, consumers will not embrace it. One day the industry will realize that it really is not about the ultimate in sound but rather the ultimate is convenience and value, for most.
JSE
Funny - I was in a Tower Records store while in LA last week and noticed they had their SACD's intermixed with the regular cds, most of them at the same price. So, the unknowing consumer buys a high resolution SACD possibly without even knowing it. They did have a separate section for DVD-A's however. But about half the time when I ask what section the SACD's are in I get a blank look. I once asked in a Sam Goody's where I can find the DVD-A section, and I was taken to the concert DVD's (DVD-V's). No wonder the monkey's confused ;-)

Dolby
08-25-2005, 10:56 AM
I see what you saying, but I think with should have succeeded because you can listen to the high rez at home (on your main home theatre), and the standard quality in the car and on MP3. Most people won't care about the quality in the car or on MP3s, but will enjoy the multi-channel sound on the AV system. I'm saying they COULD have won the battle, and had the ammo to do it with - but didn't use it correctly.

JSE
08-25-2005, 11:23 AM
I'm saying they COULD have won the battle, and had the ammo to do it with - but didn't use it correctly.

Agreed. It was a cluster from day one. Great product, horrible business plan!

JSE

sam9
08-25-2005, 04:48 PM
I solve the problem of finding SACDs/DVDAs by skipping the stores and looking at www.elusivedisc.com

Amazon also has sections devoted to each although I wish the selection was greater,

Feanor
08-26-2005, 05:44 AM
Philips and Sony are not really trying to make SACD succeed. If they really wanted it to succeed, they should release EVERYTHING they have on SACD disc, so that there would be a decent selection of titles. As it is, they put only a few titles out, so they guarantee that the format will never gain much acceptance.
I doubt it was never specifically intended for the mass market. It suspect Sony/Philips' base scenario was that it would serve a niche, audiophile market. This is, at best, what has come to pass.

The essense of niche marketing is that you serve a small group of consumers with atypical needs and desires and that you charge them a premium for your product. I suspect that Sony/Philips big disappointment is they haven't been able to sustain very high-markups on SACD hardware and software.

So why didn't audiophiles go for it in bigger way? Dunno. But I can think of a couple of things and both pertain to audiophile conservatism:

Multi-channel never became a big driver; most hard-core audiphiles remained content with 2-channel.
Vinyl media and tube electronics remained the fixation of a significant portion of audiophiles.
(There is a connect between the two; how practical is a six channel tube amp?)

Personnaly I believe the many audiophiles' stated interest in maximum high fidelity sound quality is not reality. They prefer "musicality" to true hi-fi, and musicality is defined to be what they are getting from the antiquated technology.

shokhead
08-26-2005, 06:56 AM
I doubt it was never specifically intended for the mass market. It suspect Sony/Philips' base scenario was that it would serve a niche, audiophile market. This is, at best, what has come to pass.

The essense of niche marketing is that you serve a small group of consumers with atypical needs and desires and that you charge them a premium for your product. I suspect that Sony/Philips big disappointment is they haven't been able to sustain very high-markups on SACD hardware and software.

So why didn't audiophiles go for it in bigger way? Dunno. But I can think of a couple of things and both pertain to audiophile conservatism:

Multi-channel never became a big driver; most hard-core audiphiles remained content with 2-channel.
Vinyl media and tube electronics remained the fixation of a significant portion of audiophiles.
(There is a connect between the two; how practical is a six channel tube amp?)

Personnaly I believe the many audiophiles' stated interest in maximum high fidelity sound quality is not reality. They prefer "musicality" to true hi-fi, and musicality is defined to be what they are getting from the antiquated technology.

I dont belive that most audiophiles remain content with 2ch. I think most people that buy music{12-25 or so} would rather have quantity over quality like mp3. Stuff we talk about here are amoung a small group compared to the overall audio buying public. I have a 18 and 20 year old and they could care less about multi-channal but they care about 1000 songs on a mp3 player. They dont sit and listen,they are on the move when they listen.