SACD and DVD-A dead, but K2HD is HERE!!!?!!?!?

[Woochifer]

I heard a rumor today that a significant portion of the computers released next year will have HD-DVD drives. Again, this was an unsubstantiated report but one from someone I consider at least marginally intelligent. That would be an interesting marketing ploy and given the nature of consumer dollars spent on home theater items and the current state of the economy, maybe a wise choice on the part of Toshiba/Microsoft.

It's no rumor. Toshiba has already announced that all of their laptop computers will come with HD-DVD drives starting sometime next year. It's an interesting marketing push, but I'm not sure how much of an effect this will have on the format war.

[Mr Peabody]

But most of the mass merchants dropped out of turntables in the 80's, Rega just recently came out with their new entry level P One, and I'm sure it's because they saw ProJect and Music Hall selling a higher volume and they wanted some of it. And if vinyl hadn't taken an upswing in interest those small companies would not have started printing new vinyl. You couldn't buy a new piece of vinyl for years. I'm not sure when new vinyl started hitting the market again but there was a clear gap where there wasn't any.

On your multi-channel SACD's are the surrounds used for ambience or is there music from them?

[pixelthis]

Wooch, have you seen the Ford commercials advertising all the new models will have HD radio tuners. BMW has similar commercials but I didn't hear how many models.

I could only imagine the sound of mp3 until I got one and I cannot emphasize enough how disappointing the sound was. It's alright to take on my bus commute, there's not much other choice except for FM but it is horrible through a good stereo system and I suspect equally as bad through good car audio. The Lossy is probably better but I haven't the space or player to accept it now. Interesting battle, quality vs convenience. Convenience always seems to win. I'd love to see why people are getting back into vinyl. I suspect it's just a fad but maybe there will be some new consistent supporters.

What ticks me off is that there are two "lossless" codecs, FLAC and APE.
But the only portable players offering playback are chinese models.
However they are great for putting music on a server or a computer.
The sound is exelent and the file size is smaller than wave

[Woochifer]

But most of the mass merchants dropped out of turntables in the 80's, Rega just recently came out with their new entry level P One, and I'm sure it's because they saw ProJect and Music Hall selling a higher volume and they wanted some of it. And if vinyl hadn't taken an upswing in interest those small companies would not have started printing new vinyl. You couldn't buy a new piece of vinyl for years. I'm not sure when new vinyl started hitting the market again but there was a clear gap where there wasn't any.

Like I said, it's merely a reshuffling of a deck that I don't believe is growing significantly. AR reentered the turntable market in the late-80s and made turntables into mid-90s, while Dual actually tried to go into higher end markets in the late-80s while continuing to sell turntables in the North American market until their U.S. distributor mysteriously closed shop in the mid-90s. In the meantime, Denon never stopped making turntables, neither did Technics or Sony, so you've had a consistent mass market presence. ProJect and Music Hall are merely occupying the middle price point that had largely been abandoned. It's nothing more than smaller more nimble companies rushing in to fill a market gap that larger mass market companies are uninterested in serving or unable to do so profitably.

In my experience, there was never a vinyl gap (i.e., a time when new LPs were altogether unavailable) -- merely transitions in who issued vinyl titles and at what price points. In the early-90s, the more enterprising record stores in my area were able to continuously restock their vinyl bins by importing LPs from Canada and other countries after those titles went out of print in the U.S. The prices on those imports remained lower than for CDs. In addition, some labels like Fantasy/Prestige Records never stopped producing vinyl, and to this day keep their LP releases competitively priced. Sony of all companies regularly made their biggest releases available on LP through about the mid-90s. Just last week, the new Bruce Springsteen album came out on vinyl (but this is no different than Springsteen's albums from the past two decades, which also all came out on LP), and major labels over the past decade+ have been periodically issuing catalog titles on LP.

What has truly changed over the past decade is that new LPs now cost a LOT more than CDs. Companies can now market LPs as a high margin, low volume product because there's no budget competition from the major labels -- if someone wants a new LP, there are no longer lower cost alternatives. Even the major labels now package their LP reissues as "limited" or "collector" editions, with prices to match.

As far as "upswing" in vinyl interest, this is them same thing I've been hearing over and over and over and over since the early-90s. Back then, grunge bands like Pearl Jam and Soundgarden demanded that their record companies issue their albums on vinyl, and I heard all the fawning accounts that this was "evidence" of a vinyl revival. Sales figures did not support that. When Mobile Fidelity resumed vinyl LP production in the mid-90s, audiophiles again swooned as it was "evidence" of a vinyl revival (never mind that MFSL went bankrupt a few years later, so that audiophiles could swoon again when the company resumed production in 2003 after its assets got acquired by Music Direct).

Now, you have a new cast of characters issuing vinyl, and it too is cited as "evidence" of a vinyl revival. But, I think it's nothing more than market transition that ultimately results in a zero sum gain.

On your multi-channel SACD's are the surrounds used for ambience or is there music from them?

That depends on the recording. As with two-channel recordings, you have a wide range of artistic choices, goals, and results on each release. The best of the multichannel 5.1 music tracks in my collection present a degree of depth that no two-channel playback I've ever heard can match.

The SF Symphony's Mahler series sounds great in two-channel redbook, but switch over to the 5.1 SACD track and it's that much closer to recreating the actual listening experience inside of Davies Symphony Hall (a venue that I visit regularly). Having sat in the audience during a recording session for Mahler's Fifth, I know that the mics are positioned to capture the sound from the podium position (i.e., with the soundstage in front, but with some of the musicians solidly off to the side and the hall ambiance from behind). The two-channel mix sounds like the "audience" position, whereas the 5.1 mix is how I'd imagine the orchestra sounding at the podium.

Other studio recordings space the instruments and/or vocals into the surrounds. A well done mix can create a huge gain in instrumental clarity, since the mix no longer has to collapse all of the sound elements together and overly process the sound for that phantom center effect. Plus, with older recordings, a 5.1 goes all the way back to the original multitrack master, and affords the opportunity to clean up and remix the tracks at higher resolution than the original mix.

[Feanor]

I don't think it's a resurgence so much as a game of musical chairs. In the high end market, the turntable never went away, but in the entry level markets it's almost a completely different cast of characters. The big difference in the turntable market is that nearly all of the mass market players have completely abandoned marketing turntables. The entry level decks from the likes of Music Hall and ProJect simply occupy price points that mass market companies like Pioneer, Dual, Garrard, Kenwood, and Yamaha used to. But, just because some new smaller companies stepped into a market void created by the consumer electronics giants when they abandoned the market, does not mean that the overall market for turntables has grown.

You're right about the pricing on new vinyl, and I think that's indicative of vinyl's transformation from a low cost mainstream format into a high cost niche format. A lot of new companies putting out vinyl reissues, but again, they are stepping into a market largely abandoned by the major players. The major labels nowadays issue LPs as limited editions that only remain in print for one production run. Anyone who wants an older title needs to either hunt down a used copy or hope that one of the smaller specialty vinyl houses reissues that title (albeit at those ridiculously high prices).
...

If mainstream music buyers had already decided that the cassette format was "good enough" and turned their back on vinyl before the CD's arrival, then it would stand to reason that the CD would also be "good enough" once SACD and DVD-A arrived. IMO, the only chance that those high res formats had at any success was to emphasize the multichannel capability (since most new audio systems are now multichannel), and add value to existing CD releases by standardizing around the CD/SACD hybrid format or hitch the CD to the DVD bandwagon by including video and multichannel content to CD releases (and do it better than DualDisc did).
...

For me, the whole reason for investing in a SACD player was because I wanted to hear the SF Symphony's Mahler series in its full resolution multichannel glory. Once I heard how great the CD layers on those releases sound, I absolutely had to hear how the accompanying SACD tracks wound sound (and FYI, the multichannel SACD tracks in particular sound incredible). Even if I did not buy any other SACDs, having that particular series in multichannel SACD was worth the hardware investment. Plus, the combo DAC used in many SACD players also does an excellent job with standard CDs.
...

I don't think in this case it was the format war, so much as a combination of factors that sunk SACD and DVD-A, not the least of which was the collective yawn that these formats elicited from the buying public. I think the only chance that SACD had at achieving any significant market share would have been for Sony and Universal Music to standardize their releases around the CD/SACD hybrid format. Basically, make SACD a value-added enhancement to the CD format, and emphasize the multichannel feature. Make it so that buyers get SACD capability with their CDs, and retailers don't have to maintain dual inventories. This never happened, and SACD (and DVD-A) had to sink or swim on their own to a largely indifferent buying public that cares more about portability.

I don't know what we'd do without Wooch's insight. Who brings the relevant facts together to paint the big picture together better than him, eh? EH? Nobody.

We need to understand that LP and Hi-rez are both niche products. SACD might have gone mainstream if Sony/Universal had made it a "a value-added enhancement to the CD format", as Wooch suggests. Unfortunately, and to the HUGE deteriment of audiophilia, it was never Sony's intention for it to do so; rather they wanted to create another niche product. Let me repeat for emphasis: Sony never wanted SACD to go mainstream, (in any case not 'till they'd skimmed the high-end market for a decade at least).

What they didn't count on was the attitude of audophile traditionalists with their irrational hatred of everything digital -- and their investment of thousands $$ invested in LPs and playback equipment. But vinyl will never become a vibrant force contrary to the dreams of the traditionalists and hobbiests: it will never again be more than niche product, (a zombie of its former self). What really appalls me is that (younger) people without existing LP collections want get into vinyl. It is an offense to common sense.

[Woochifer]

We need to understand that LP and Hi-rez are both niche products. SACD might have gone mainstream if Sony/Universal had made it a "a value-added enhancement to the CD format", as Wooch suggests. Unfortunately, and to the HUGE deteriment of audiophilia, it was never Sony's intention for it to do so; rather they wanted to create another niche product. Let me repeat for emphasis: Sony never wanted SACD to go mainstream, (in any case not 'till they'd skimmed the high-end market for a decade at least).

I think the problem is that Sony never could figure out what they wanted to do with SACD. Sometimes it seemed that their hardware and software divisions were on different planets. At first SACDs were priced around $30 and could only do two-channel, and then they went multichannel, and then the prices were rolled back to $20 (~$15 street price). The hardware has been similarly confusing -- at first, the players cost more than $1,000, then they migrated all the way down to their $150 CD changers and DVD players. Sony even included SACD playback on their HTIB systems and the PS3, yet they have excluded SACD playback from their Blu-ray players. Strange.

Sony and Universal thought that the best way to market SACD was to initially issue the discs on single-layer discs that could not be played on a regular CD player! This required retailers to set aside separate sections, and consumers to specifically seek out the SACD versions, which would in all likelihood be difficult to track down. Right from the outset, they put all kinds of market constraints on SACD and made it difficult on even the most ardent supporters of the format.

The smaller labels like Chesky, Concord Jazz, and Telarc had it figured out fairly early when they standardized their new releases on hybrid CD/SACD discs. No need for dual inventories or market confusion, they simply put everything together on one disc and allowed consumers to pick and choose how they wanted to listen. When I finally tracked down a copy of the "Le Sacre du Printemps" CD/SACD release by the LA Philharmonic, the last thing I needed was to check the case to see if I'd found the CD or SACD version! (BTW, this disc is a sonic wonder and ferocious performance by the LA Phil, and it's the first recording from the LA Phil's much acclaimed Disney Hall ... this review says it all)

What they didn't count on was the attitude of audophile traditionalists with their irrational hatred of everything digital -- and their investment of thousands $$ invested in LPs and playback equipment. But vinyl will never become a vibrant force contrary to the dreams of the traditionalists and hobbiests: it will never again be more than niche product, (a zombie of its former self). What really appalls me is that (younger) people without existing LP collections want get into vinyl. It is an offense to common sense.

I think it's more a grudging acceptance of the CD format, which has evolved and matured as producers and engineers figured out how to record and master around the format. If anything, many audiophiles have now invested a huge amount of money into their digital chain -- the transport, DAC, cabling, isolation, etc. The last thing they want to hear about is a new higher resolution format that can deliver stunning audio quality out of a $150 player. Not only that but I think there's a prejudicial attitude about multichannel in general among a lot of audiophiles. Anything that supports multichannel is summarily dismissed out of hand.

It's more than ironic what a large segment of the vinyl market has turned into. When I was in college, I stuck with vinyl because it was inexpensive and a lot of the music I listened to was still unavailable on CD. I invested in a decent turntable and cartridge because I had a large vinyl collection and wanted to optimize the audio quality to the degree that I could.

For a college student today, you're right, it now makes a lot less sense to get into vinyl precisely because it can be a very expensive hobby. Unlike CD players, which can at least guarantee a certain minimum level of performance, entry level turntables and (especially) cartridges can sound pretty bad. A turntable/cartridge rig that properly demonstrates the virtues of vinyl doesn't come cheap, and there's a learning curve in how to tweak with the turntable for optimal performance.

Add to the hardware cost, you got the cost of new LPs, which are across the board more expensive than new CDs -- the exact opposite situation from when I was collecting vinyl as a college student. Although it's still possible to stretch the music budget by buying used vinyl, I've noted that quality used vinyl (i.e., properly cataloged, decent condition, not just thrown into a bin for everyone to sort through, etc.) is also creeping up there in cost. A lot of the lower priced used LPs I've tried recently are not in very good condition.

Also, for someone who's not used to vinyl, the idiosyncrasies of the format will take some getting used to (e.g., all of the maintenance rituals, keeping the LPs away from heat and sun, the need to keep the turntable isolated, dealing with warped records, etc.). On top of that, vinyl is primarily a non-portable format, meaning that you usually listen to it wherever the turntable is setup. All of these rituals and mobility constraints seem to run contrary to what younger listeners are used to and expect.

I guess it's a good thing to satisfy a curiosity, but considering the level of dedication required to maintain a vinyl rig, I just wonder how many of the younger people who claim to "prefer" vinyl will actually stick with it or even invest in the format with their wallets in the first place.

[pixelthis]

It is a chore to keep a vinyl rig going but worth it for the most part, at least to someone who has been in it his whole life, and who already has a decent collection.
But I disagree about turntables, haven't listened to many lately, a music hall at tweeter,
etc, but I have two technics turntables, one belt and one direct drive that sound great.
If one bought a decent used platter it could be a rewarding experience.
One thing I HAVE always given to the vinyl crowd, delicate treble seems better on records
(but on balance digital is better)
DIGITAL DID TO RECORDINGS what FM did to radio, basically