SACD vs DVD-A (Business/Marketing reason)

[Dolby]

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]

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]

...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]

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.

[Pyrrho]

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.

[Dolby]

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]

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]

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]

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]

. 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/...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]

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.

[Feanor]

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]

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.