LP's coming back in style.

[RGA]

I live in a town of about 90,000 people on Vancoucver Island. For the Canadian browsers most noticably in Western Canada you will know of the chain A&B Sound - I assume like a Tweeter in the states that sells a bit higher end recievers and CD/DVDs etc.

Well they have a small section of new sealed LP's. But here is the thing there are three more LP selling outlets on the same street in downtown Nanaimo - so I was thinking if LP's are growing here they must be growing elsewhere. And interestingly it is a lot of sub 25 year old buyers getting into these strange big black discs that are not portable and have surface noise. So I asked the ~20 yeal old goirl why she was paying $17.00Cdn for the Sarah McLachlan Re-mixed LP when she could buy the CD for $10.99?

Well D'uhh they sound like way better it's more there better highs. And of course being ~20 and female she probably knows more about highs than your's truly. Of course I was buying the same LP (alrready have the CD) and like D'uhh she was you know totally right.

The other two places of course sell used and so I picked up a 12 inch single of Roxette' The Look. Don't laugh this was one of my favorite songs and purchased more out of rekindling my memories than anything else. SO I rumaged and found my CD of Look Sharp. Seriously, the 12 inch single is just phenomenal and the cd is tinny thin and just out to lunch. Ahh these kids today - some are getting smart -- err just have better hearing.

Whoda thought DJ's of the world might have saved the LP format - and better yet brought it back to the realm where people areonce again considering it as a real iable format. With Dianna Krall, Shania Twain, Madonna, Sarah McLachlan all producig their latest albums on Vinyl --- maybe the female of our pitiful little species are the ones who will save the better format from extinction - because they can hear better than most males.

I wonder how Vinyl Sales are doing against SACD?

[Slosh]

LP never went out of style with the punk and indie labels, and in fact typically sell for two or three dollars less than the CD versions. I opt for LP most of the time except when the label in question has sold me an excessively noisy pressing in the past (which usually only happens maybe 5% of the time, fortunately).

I would buy SACD over LP if there was anything worth buying (that I don't already have).

[Stone]

LP never went out of style

True. But I also think it's coming back into vogue with the younger crowd. I've heard there's a serious resurgence in Britain.

And on the cool check in
Center stage on the mic,
and we're puttin' it on wax
it's....

[nobody]

I buy mostly vinyl when available, and I've absolutely noticed an increase of what's out there. more new releases are on vinyl all the time and reissues have been getting really plentiful and more varied.

The audiophile stuff is expensive, but general releases and even non-audiophile reissues are usually cheaper than CDs. I grab the vinyl and a blank CDR for less than the CD and end up with both most times.

I don't wanna get into the sound quality arguement, but I do like the way they sound. I like having the big cover art and just the physical product appeals to me.

[dean_martin]

I live in a town of about 90,000 people on Vancoucver Island. For the Canadian browsers most noticably in Western Canada you will know of the chain A&B Sound - I assume like a Tweeter in the states that sells a bit higher end recievers and CD/DVDs etc.

Well they have a small section of new sealed LP's. But here is the thing there are three more LP selling outlets on the same street in downtown Nanaimo - so I was thinking if LP's are growing here they must be growing elsewhere. And interestingly it is a lot of sub 25 year old buyers getting into these strange big black discs that are not portable and have surface noise. So I asked the ~20 yeal old goirl why she was paying $17.00Cdn for the Sarah McLachlan Re-mixed LP when she could buy the CD for $10.99?

Well D'uhh they sound like way better it's more there better highs. And of course being ~20 and female she probably knows more about highs than your's truly. Of course I was buying the same LP (alrready have the CD) and like D'uhh she was you know totally right.

The other two places of course sell used and so I picked up a 12 inch single of Roxette' The Look. Don't laugh this was one of my favorite songs and purchased more out of rekindling my memories than anything else. SO I rumaged and found my CD of Look Sharp. Seriously, the 12 inch single is just phenomenal and the cd is tinny thin and just out to lunch. Ahh these kids today - some are getting smart -- err just have better hearing.

Whoda thought DJ's of the world might have saved the LP format - and better yet brought it back to the realm where people areonce again considering it as a real iable format. With Dianna Krall, Shania Twain, Madonna, Sarah McLachlan all producig their latest albums on Vinyl --- maybe the female of our pitiful little species are the ones who will save the better format from extinction - because they can hear better than most males.

I wonder how Vinyl Sales are doing against SACD?

RGA - have you auditioned AN's turntable(s)? What about AN phono preamps? Do they make cartridges? I realize you have the NAD 533, but I was wondering if AN had a table that should be considered if one is planning to upgrade from say a $350-400 set up to a $750-1000 rig. Please post a review over in the analog forum if you can. Thanks.

[Pat D]

CDs still rule. In 2003, about 170 times more CDs were sold than vinyl.

SACD and vinyl are about equal.

DVD Audio sold about 5 times better than SACD.

Now, you can question the exactitude of the figures given by the RIAA, but that gives about the order of magnitude.

[Audio Girl]

I own all sources with the exception of SACD. I don't own SACD because I haven't been impressed. My Ayre CX-7 CD player has killed any SACD player I've brought home to A/B against it. But, my favorite of all is vinyl. Not necessarily the best sounding but it does have lots of memories for me, and just spinning it at times makes up for things coming too easy.

Too bad all my 2-channel equipment has been unplugged and unplayed since the Marine deployed for Iraq in May.

Mary

[RGA]

Please would someone tell me where i said LP sales were higher than CD or that LP was going to catch CD. I merely implied that maybe younger people are getting into VInyl because they like the sound better and that maybe DJ's are the ones who have saved the format. Yikes some feel real insecure about their cds.

[Woochifer]

I live in a town of about 90,000 people on Vancoucver Island. For the Canadian browsers most noticably in Western Canada you will know of the chain A&B Sound - I assume like a Tweeter in the states that sells a bit higher end recievers and CD/DVDs etc.

Well they have a small section of new sealed LP's. But here is the thing there are three more LP selling outlets on the same street in downtown Nanaimo - so I was thinking if LP's are growing here they must be growing elsewhere. And interestingly it is a lot of sub 25 year old buyers getting into these strange big black discs that are not portable and have surface noise. So I asked the ~20 yeal old goirl why she was paying $17.00Cdn for the Sarah McLachlan Re-mixed LP when she could buy the CD for $10.99?

Well D'uhh they sound like way better it's more there better highs. And of course being ~20 and female she probably knows more about highs than your's truly. Of course I was buying the same LP (alrready have the CD) and like D'uhh she was you know totally right.

The other two places of course sell used and so I picked up a 12 inch single of Roxette' The Look. Don't laugh this was one of my favorite songs and purchased more out of rekindling my memories than anything else. SO I rumaged and found my CD of Look Sharp. Seriously, the 12 inch single is just phenomenal and the cd is tinny thin and just out to lunch. Ahh these kids today - some are getting smart -- err just have better hearing.

Whoda thought DJ's of the world might have saved the LP format - and better yet brought it back to the realm where people areonce again considering it as a real iable format. With Dianna Krall, Shania Twain, Madonna, Sarah McLachlan all producig their latest albums on Vinyl --- maybe the female of our pitiful little species are the ones who will save the better format from extinction - because they can hear better than most males.

I wonder how Vinyl Sales are doing against SACD?

I think you're presuming a lot just because you see more vinyl where you live. In my old neighborhood in S.F., stores there never stopped stocking vinyl. Tower and Virgin kept their vinyl sections around, if for no other reason than to stock hip hop, electronica, and other music that typically comes out on vinyl way before it does on CD. Stores that cater to the DJ trade, also of course kept stocking vinyl.

As others have pointed out, vinyl has always retained its niche in specific genres and never really went away. With indie alternative and punk music, vinyl has been a preferred format for a very large segment of that fanbase. As far back as 10 years ago, alternative acts like Soundgarden and Pearl Jam were putting added features into their vinyl releases that you could not find in the CD releases. The support for vinyl varies significantly from label to label. Sony Music ironically has been one of the best labels for issuing vinyl titles.

What's happening right now is that there is a vinyl uptick driven by the popularity of 180/200 gram vinyl releases in audiophile circles. One thing that I'm sure you've picked up on is that these LPs now cost more than CDs. Also, keep in mind that a lot of the newer LP releases that you see are limited editions (i.e one press run and that's it), so there's also the element of collectibility to consider. When I was buying most of my LPs, I did so largely because at that time, they cost only about half of what CDs cost.

The thing to keep in mind with that 12" single that you picked up is that those are often mixed and mastered very differently than the CD releases, so of course they'll sound different. Has nothing to do with format, but rather with the intended audience. A lot of 12" singles that I've collected over the years tend to sound dry compared to how the original version sounds on the album. This is because they cater to the DJ trade and playback in a club environment, which will tend to have more live acoustics than a typical home. If the CD transfer was done directly off the remix and not repurposed for digital format, then of course it will sound thin and tinny.

As far as SACD sales go, the Pink Floyd DSOTM hybrid disc ALONE outsold all vinyl LPs combined last year.

[Woochifer]

CDs still rule. In 2003, about 170 times more CDs were sold than vinyl.

SACD and vinyl are about equal.

DVD Audio sold about 5 times better than SACD.

Now, you can question the exactitude of the figures given by the RIAA, but that gives about the order of magnitude.

I would have to assume that the SACD figure does not include hybrid discs, because Pink Floyd, the Rolling Stones, and the Police each came out with hybrids last year that sold over 500k copies.

[RGA]

I only really noticed because Dianna Krall's latest album has come out on LP and to my knowledge it's the only one that has had a vinyl release. SO all of a sudden out of the blue they release her on LP. Not your typical DJ or indie artist. Ditto for Sarah McLachlan's latest Afterglow album, Norah Jones, The Dixie Chicks, Madonna, Bruce Springston etc. These are mainstream artists.

Yes my jaw dropped at the prices - My itle was not to imply that LP's are going t come back and reign supreme but they would not be making it if there was not a desire for it. And that desire is pretty strong when you have to shell out 3-5 times the money to get it on VInyl. Certainly it hasn't left cetain markets. But A&B sound didn;'t cary them for years and now they do here. Vinyl is now a niche market - but then so too is SACD. You need to know the difference between the people buying SACD because of SACD and those who happened to get it because it was a hybrid disc when they don;t even own a SACD capable machine. The numbers can be skewed to make SACD look like it's desired by the masses when in fact that may not be the case.

Not knocking SACD - those companies can create hybrids and sales of SACD will naturally only go up. And LP's well the used market should be counted - the desire may be there for newer titles(5 years ago titles) - but they are not getting printed. I should imagine that the big bos would really rather not get into vinyl pressing again because it no doubt isn't as profitable.

Also - the RIAA is suspect at skewing numbers on other issues - for example apparently "The RIAA reports a sale as a unit SHIPPED to record stores, not as a unit sold to consumers at those record stores."

[N. Abstentia]

I would have to assume that the SACD figure does not include hybrid discs, because Pink Floyd, the Rolling Stones, and the Police each came out with hybrids last year that sold over 500k copies.

Also, the RIAA does not track online sales of SACD and DVD-A. Personally, with the nearest record store over an hours drive away (along with their large selection of about 8 DVD-A/SACD titles) I buy everything online.

[RGA]

Also, the RIAA does not track online sales of SACD and DVD-A. Personally, with the nearest record store over an hours drive away (along with their large selection of about 8 DVD-A/SACD titles) I buy everything online.

Practically ALL vinyl sales are online - do they track online Vinyl but not SACD? Or do they not track online sales period? For instance this is the site i will be buying from here in Vancouver. They are BOTH a B&M and online. The RIAA doesn't count Canada do they. http://www.adagioplus.com/

How about Europe where Vinyl sales is probably 10 times+ what they are here given that they sell Vinyl at the major outlets in numbers and where the home of the turntables are still being made in nmbers.

[Woochifer]

I only really noticed because Dianna Krall's latest album has come out on LP and to my knowledge it's the only one that has had a vinyl release. SO all of a sudden out of the blue they release her on LP. Not your typical DJ or indie artist. Ditto for Sarah McLachlan's latest Afterglow album, Norah Jones, The Dixie Chicks, Madonna, Bruce Springston etc. These are mainstream artists.

It's actually not out of the blue. Most major artists have maintained an LP presence, depending on what label they're signed to. Among the major labels, Sony Music has been the most consistent with issuing LP releases for their top selling artists. Other labels have been hit and miss. Universal Music (where Diana Krall is signed) has been very inconsistent with vinyl releases. What's happened more recently is that LPs come out more consistently with new major releases, but they no longer stay in print. And with second tier artists and new acts, they're not going to get a vinyl release usually.

The major labels have begun subcontracting their LP manufacturing to outfits like RTI, who've been doing working under the radar on behalf of audiophile labels and indies for years. The quality of the pressings from these independent pressing houses is typically better than what the major labels used to produce on their own, but because you no longer have economies of scale at work, the prices are also higher. In the past, major labels would maintain in-house manufacturing capacity so that they could keep LPs in print, but the more common practice now is to release the LP as a limited edition at the same time as the CD release. Once the LP supply dwindles, it's gone for good.

Yes my jaw dropped at the prices - My itle was not to imply that LP's are going t come back and reign supreme but they would not be making it if there was not a desire for it. And that desire is pretty strong when you have to shell out 3-5 times the money to get it on VInyl. Certainly it hasn't left cetain markets. But A&B sound didn;'t cary them for years and now they do here. Vinyl is now a niche market - but then so too is SACD. You need to know the difference between the people buying SACD because of SACD and those who happened to get it because it was a hybrid disc when they don;t even own a SACD capable machine. The numbers can be skewed to make SACD look like it's desired by the masses when in fact that may not be the case.

That's the individual choice for that particular chain. HMV, Virgin, Tower, and even smaller mall stores like Sam Goody and Wherehouse have maintained some kind of vinyl section since at least the rise of alternative rock when bands like Pearl Jam and Soundgarden demanded that record companies put their albums out on vinyl. The thing about vinyl availability is that most of the specialty music stores around where I live carry vinyl, while the multiple department superstores are the places that don't carry vinyl. That's why I shop for music at dedicated music stores, even if their prices are somewhat higher than Best Buy or WalMart.

The thing about SACD hybrids is that Sony WANTS to eventually blur the distinction. It has nothing to do with skewing and more to do with their desire to seed the market with enough SACDs, whether hybrid or single layer, to push the hardware market towards incorporating the SACD format into all future disc players.

It doesn't matter whether people were buying the remastered Rolling Stones discs because they had a SACD layer. The fact that several million SACDs are out there puts market pressure on hardware manufacturers to include SACD playback in their machines, because that's a few million consumers who might read the SACD insert in the liner notes and start asking about it. That's the reason why Sony paid for the 5.1 production, pressing, and marketing costs on Pink Floyd's DSOTM, even though Capitol/EMI (Pink Floyd's label) officially was in the DVD-A camp. They were essentially giving free money to a rival record company. But, they knew that a remastered anniversary edition of that album would sell millions of copies, and including the SACD layer (and information about the format) with every one of those discs is seeding future demand for the format since I'm sure that at least a few consumers who bought the Pink Floyd disc subsequently went out and got a SACD player so that they cold listen to DSOTM in 5.1 or two-channel SACD.

The market for standalone CD players is declining fast, and there's plenty of jockeying around right now pushing the next round of disc players to support any number of formats. WMA, MP3, DiVX, SACD, etc. are all trying to get a large enough pool of users so that it's essential for disc players to include those formats (and pay the royalties to the creators).

Not knocking SACD - those companies can create hybrids and sales of SACD will naturally only go up. And LP's well the used market should be counted - the desire may be there for newer titles(5 years ago titles) - but they are not getting printed. I should imagine that the big bos would really rather not get into vinyl pressing again because it no doubt isn't as profitable.

No one tracks used music sales -- not even the stores that sell them keep track. And it's not an area of interest to the RIAA because used CDs and LPs don't generate royalties. The only reason the RIAA tracks these sales figures is because they have to maintain some kind of audited distribution record in order to divide up the royalties.

I'm not sure who still maintains vinyl production capacity, but the current model of outsourcing the manufacturing and issuing the LPs as high priced limited editions seems to be working for them.

Also - the RIAA is suspect at skewing numbers on other issues - for example apparently "The RIAA reports a sale as a unit SHIPPED to record stores, not as a unit sold to consumers at those record stores."

Well, yes and no. They do keep track of the shipped units that get returned and subsequently cutout of inventory.

[Woochifer]

Practically ALL vinyl sales are online - do they track online Vinyl but not SACD? Or do they not track online sales period? For instance this is the site i will be buying from here in Vancouver. They are BOTH a B&M and online. The RIAA doesn't count Canada do they. http://www.adagioplus.com/

I dunno about that ALL vinyl sales coming from online sources. It depends on how many stores you think are still carrying vinyl. Around where I live, most of the independent music stores have huge vinyl sections with a lot of new vinyl titles. I know that I've never mail ordered a vinyl record in my life. If there's something I'm looking for that I cannot find, the stores in my area will do special orders or searches for their customers.

How about Europe where Vinyl sales is probably 10 times+ what they are here given that they sell Vinyl at the major outlets in numbers and where the home of the turntables are still being made in nmbers.

That's also a pretty tall presumption. I know that the CD adoption in Europe was behind North America and Asia, but they did eventually fall in line there as well. Several years ago when American record companies were deleting LPs in a flurry, some of the record stores where I shop kept stocking vinyl from wherever they could find it. For a while a lot of the LPs that I bought were made in Canada and Britain, but after a couple of years, that supply line also dried up and ironically, American record companies started issuing vinyl again in a limited capacity.

I would seriously doubt that vinyl sales in Europe are 10x what it is here because they're a smaller market to begin with. Also, if they're still pressing vinyl in those kinds of quantities, I would expect to see a lot more mainstream acts having their albums imported here on vinyl, but I don't. (And in the vinyl heyday, stores like Tower used to regularly stock Japanese and British imported LPs because they had different songs, higher quality pressings, and/or variations in the cover art and liner notes) A lot of the Euro vinyl that I see in stores is in a lot of the same genres where vinyl is still popular here -- indie/alternative rock, electronica, remixes, etc.

[RGA]

This is my problem with Sony and it goes back to arguments I have made for a long time. Sony not the consumer is driving the market for SACD. They are attempting to create hybrid discs - well they are not just attempting it and flood the market with the hybrid discs because it was abundantly clear in British Columbia at least that SACD - the players or the discs - by itself was not selling.

So now they've sold it to the consumer who can read the insert and then their hope is that theNEXT DVD player that person buys will have SACD capability. The Sony player here was $249.99Cdn. and the only player that had SACD(and even that unit is gone now).

I guess it doesn't really matter to Joe Consumer because the discs still play cd and the SACD capable machine last year was in line with other DVD players. It's good marketing, not sure what the sales angle is going to be for Sony - and it is purely about profit of course. Perhaps they overestimated SACD thinking people would dump all their cds and then pay $25.00 for the SACD and no one can copy(at least for a while) and Sony makes out well selling their $6,000 players. But not enough people bought up here - stores carried no music. So they come out with a $250.00 deck that does everything.

Perfect sound forever until we can make a buck on yet another format.

[Dave_G]

I like cd's and I like lp's.

For forever I swore lp's were the bomb.

But some recent remastered cd's releases make me think twice about digital reproduction of music. Like the PG remasters, the Steely Dan remasters, and the XTC remasters.

These "sound" excellent. Quiet as all hell and all that. But they are still "digital" and thus subject to nuances of the d:a converters, filters, etc., similar to what cartridge you use for lp's, etc.

In the big scheme, I would prefer a hassle free system similar to cd playback but still maintain an AAA presentation.

I have very few AAA lp's anymore (I assume you cats know what I mean by AAA) but still enjoy them.

The digital vs. analog debate to me all boils down to this:

They are different means to the same end. Neither is "better". They are "different".

Dave

[Woochifer]

This is my problem with Sony and it goes back to arguments I have made for a long time. Sony not the consumer is driving the market for SACD. They are attempting to create hybrid discs - well they are not just attempting it and flood the market with the hybrid discs because it was abundantly clear in British Columbia at least that SACD - the players or the discs - by itself was not selling.

Ultimately though, it will be the consumer that determines whether SACD sinks or swims. Sony is simply attempting to make the transition as seamless as possible, hence the hybrid disc format. My understanding is that the only thing holding back SACD from becoming the carrier format of choice for all of Sony Music's releases is manufacturing capacity. When the Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd hybrids were selling in the millions last year, that tied up all of Sony's SACD manufacturing capacity. It's long been rumored that Sony and Universal will standardize all of their new releases around the hybrid disc once manufacturing capacity expands. This is also why the DVD-A camp is coming out with the dual-disc format at the end of the year.

The fact is that consumers have bought millions of SACDs, and many of them don't even know that they have SACD until they look at the liner notes. SACD cannot succeed as a standalone format. Audio-only players are a deadend market. Any new audio format will have to piggyback on the direction of the DVD market, because that's where the bulk of the product development and consumer spending is going.

Consumers have already decided that the CD no longer represents value for their entertainment dollar, as evidenced by the 30+% decline in CD sales over the past few years. Downloading is not the issue, entertainment value compared with DVDs and videogames IS the issue. Consumers are buying up DVDs and videogames in bunches, and if you look at the dollar allocations, the losses in CD sales correlate directly to gains in the DVD and videogame markets.

So now they've sold it to the consumer who can read the insert and then their hope is that theNEXT DVD player that person buys will have SACD capability. The Sony player here was $249.99Cdn. and the only player that had SACD(and even that unit is gone now).

Yamaha, Denon, Pioneer, Samsung, Toshiba, Onkyo, and Marantz have all come out with affordable universal players since the start of the year. Sony and Philips continue to come out with new SACD models. They're all over the place in the stores that I visit, and Best Buy stocks at least two universal players, and two Sony SACD models; and the store I visited last week had only THREE CD players on display. If your criteria for success is sales for audio-only players, that simply does not acknowledge market reality.

I guess it doesn't really matter to Joe Consumer because the discs still play cd and the SACD capable machine last year was in line with other DVD players. It's good marketing, not sure what the sales angle is going to be for Sony - and it is purely about profit of course. Perhaps they overestimated SACD thinking people would dump all their cds and then pay $25.00 for the SACD and no one can copy(at least for a while) and Sony makes out well selling their $6,000 players. But not enough people bought up here - stores carried no music. So they come out with a $250.00 deck that does everything.

Perfect sound forever until we can make a buck on yet another format.

You have to look at the big picture. The CD format has now been around for 22 years, and with the market now transitioning rapidly into multichannel, some kind of multichannel audio carrier HAD to be developed. A high res PCM based multichannel audio-only format was always part of the plan when the DVD format was getting developed. It's not about getting people to dump their CD collections, it's about transitioning the market into a higher resolution format that can do multichannel audio, carry video signals, and incorporate copy protection.

If you look at Sony's SACD's plans as purely profit driven, that completely misses out on the changes that are ongoing in the industry. Basically, you're saying that companies should just hitch their wagon to the CD and stick to it. Anyone who tries to transition the market towards anything else is doing it only for the money. But, seeing how the CD market is getting squeezed on all sides, failing to adapt to a changing home entertainment market would be extraordinarily foolhardy. If the end result is higher resolution multichannel audio, then I'm all for it.

Are you disappointed that Sony bumped down the SACD player and disc prices? Should they have kept the prices high forever? Look at ANY home entertainment format, they start with high priced hardware that only early adopters can afford, and then gradually transition into the mass market price points, until eventually the product is sold at the corner convenience store. Just because you couldn't find any titles up in BC is hardly a barometer of how a format is doing overall. The absence of SACD titles in your neighborhood is no more an indicator of how a format is doing nationally than the sudden appearance of LPs in those same stores.

Sony's original plan for SACD was to first appeal to the hardcore audiophile market by producing high quality two-channel remasters of best sellers and getting audiophile niche labels like Chesky and Mobile Fidelity on board. In the niche audiophile disc market, SACD has been very successful since most audiophile specialty labels now put out SACDs. The way that Sony rolled out SACD is the exact same way that the CD was initially marketed. Go for the early adopter market and put out some titles with audiophile appeal, and then bump down the hardware prices and seed the market with as many disc titles as possible. Keep in mind that the Sony CDP-101 sold for $1,200 when it came out in 1982, and the first CDs sold for $25. Translate that into today's dollars, and you'll see that the pattern is not all that different.

Where SACD adoption proceeds from here on out will likely be slower than it was with CD for a variety of reasons. SACD is at a stage right now where it cannot rely on two-channel transfers to carry the format -- they have to include multichannel audio if they are going to persuade the buying public. And multichannel remixes of older recordings takes a lot of time. It's not like CDs where the record companies could just take their analog tape libraries and transfer them to PCM format as fast as they could (and this quickie transfer approach is why so many early CDs sounded as bad as they did). 5.1 remixes of older titles require repurposing of the original multitrack masters.

Newer titles are actually done in 5.1 now as standard practice, so getting newer titles onto store shelves would actually be easier to do. It's ultimately going to depend on whether new releases start coming out in SACD or DVD-A that will determine the fate of those formats. The backwards compatibility with CD is simply the key to getting them into stores, because if you ask any music retailer they will tell you that they resist stocking multiple format inventories. If you can put SACD and DVD-As into the same bins and onto the same discs as CDs, then that bodes well for the formats.

[Dusty Chalk]

Consumers have already decided that the CD no longer represents value for their entertainment dollar, as evidenced by the 30+% decline in CD sales over the past few years.

I think you're playing with statistics here. We've discussed this point before, and we think (I don't speak for the board, but this is the conclusion drawn in that thread) that the reason for the decline is two-fold -- one is that there have been fewer new releases. Something the RIAA doesn't like to admit. They'd like to blame it all on downloading. It's not.

The other reason is that what they're releasing is crap. Now, your standard sheep will still swallow crap when it's shoved down their throats, but real music buyers end up just looking elsewhere for their music. So yes, downloading plays into that somewhat, but basically, we've just become more discerning.

Now, about your conclusion (CD != entertainment dollar value), that might be another way to phrase it, but I wouldn't blame the format. The music they're releasing on CD != entertainment dollar value.

[RGA]

The fact is that consumers have bought millions of SACDs, and many of them don't even know that they have SACD until they look at the liner notes. SACD cannot succeed as a standalone format. Audio-only players are a deadend market. Any new audio format will have to piggyback on the direction of the DVD market, because that's where the bulk of the product development and consumer spending is going.

This is my point - the market doesn't give a crap about SACD. They are buying it because it's a CD.

Consumers have already decided that the CD no longer represents value for their entertainment dollar, as evidenced by the 30+% decline in CD sales over the past few years. Downloading is not the issue, entertainment value compared with DVDs and videogames IS the issue. Consumers are buying up DVDs and videogames in bunches, and if you look at the dollar allocations, the losses in CD sales correlate directly to gains in the DVD and videogame markets.

Ohh I think Downloading IS the issue. Peaple here download like mad and run their computer through their stereos. DVD sales and videp games have nothing to do with it. How many MUSIC DVDs are selling perhaps. I'm not saying that DVD and Video games are not sellling better - there is only so mauch a person can purchase. But what SACD has to do with any of this. That is an audio format only. To me SACD they've invested heavily into and are stuck with it - Sony is big enough to FORCE it on the consumer.

Yamaha, Denon, Pioneer, Samsung, Toshiba, Onkyo, and Marantz have all come out with affordable universal players since the start of the year. Sony and Philips continue to come out with new SACD models. They're all over the place in the stores that I visit, and Best Buy stocks at least two universal players, and two Sony SACD models; and the store I visited last week had only THREE CD players on display. If your criteria for success is sales for audio-only players, that simply does not acknowledge market reality.

I never argued that universal players were less popular. Of course the average person would rather spend $89.00 and get a player that plays all formats than spend $400.00 on a NAD cd player. Nothing really new there. And of course if in 2 years EVERY player has SACD in their universal player then naturally SACD will be called an unheralded success. What I'm saying is that the masses didn't ASK and demand that CRAPPY cds be replaced. What happened was that CD sales flattened and started declining so to generate sales and hopefully get people to re-purchase all their cds on SACD so they can make a ton of cash. DVD's keep coming out with lousy first versions and then a second superior edition for the exact same reason - sell the person the same movie twice or more if you're lucky.

You have to look at the big picture. The CD format has now been around for 22 years, and with the market now transitioning rapidly into multichannel, some kind of multichannel audio carrier HAD to be developed. A high res PCM based multichannel audio-only format was always part of the plan when the DVD format was getting developed. It's not about getting people to dump their CD collections, it's about transitioning the market into a higher resolution format that can do multichannel audio, carry video signals, and incorporate copy protection.

It's the last reason that is driving the market at this point.

If you look at Sony's SACD's plans as purely profit driven, that completely misses out on the changes that are ongoing in the industry. Basically, you're saying that companies should just hitch their wagon to the CD and stick to it. Anyone who tries to transition the market towards anything else is doing it only for the money. But, seeing how the CD market is getting squeezed on all sides, failing to adapt to a changing home entertainment market would be extraordinarily foolhardy. If the end result is higher resolution multichannel audio, then I'm all for it.

Of courese Sony is all about money and they are driving the changes - the consumer isn't asking for SACD - SACD soul purpose is to generate profit because CD sales are falling because of copying(since affordable CDWR came to market so did conveniently SACD and DVD-A). And they need something in order to con everyone into replacing their music with a new more expensive one - give them a reverberation effect out their rear speakers.

Are you disappointed that Sony bumped down the SACD player and disc prices? Should they have kept the prices high forever? Look at ANY home entertainment format, they start with high priced hardware that only early adopters can afford, and then gradually transition into the mass market price points, until eventually the product is sold at the corner convenience store. Just because you couldn't find any titles up in BC is hardly a barometer of how a format is doing overall. The absence of SACD titles in your neighborhood is no more an indicator of how a format is doing nationally than the sudden appearance of LPs in those same stores.

I have no problem with the strategy from a business perspective whatsoever. You charge whatever the market will bare. You bring out X technology and sell to the Rich. Onvce that marketdries up you bring it down to the Yuppie who isn't quite rich buit wants everyone to think he is. Then to the upper middle class then eventually it's in Wal-Mart. One just needs to look at DVD players - Hell a girl I know got a DVD player for $10.00 - that's Canadian so about $6.85. Granted a super sale of some sort but that's ridiculously cheap.

Hell even the Wega TV's that were all over $1200.00Cdn a couple years ago are now on for $479Cdn 27inch. I don't have a problem with most of this. And the Cd players all sound the same camp won't either. After listening to my budget cd player's cd player section I wonder if it'snot deliberately built to sound that horrible in order to make DVD sound look better in comparison. Well that's a conspiracy maybe it's just the first place they're going to cheap out because I havce not heard 2 channel cd sound that bad since the 1980s.

[Woochifer]

I think you're playing with statistics here. We've discussed this point before, and we think (I don't speak for the board, but this is the conclusion drawn in that thread) that the reason for the decline is two-fold -- one is that there have been fewer new releases. Something the RIAA doesn't like to admit. They'd like to blame it all on downloading. It's not.

The other reason is that what they're releasing is crap. Now, your standard sheep will still swallow crap when it's shoved down their throats, but real music buyers end up just looking elsewhere for their music. So yes, downloading plays into that somewhat, but basically, we've just become more discerning.

I think that the music industry is getting hit with a perfect storm right now. The repetitive and derivative quality of the releases coming out is only a part of an overall picture that includes changes in radio, retailing, downloading, economic conditions, and competition from newer entertainment media. I work with consumer expenditure data and I can tell you that the overall entertainment spending pretty much tracks with variations in income. Where the big changes have occurred is WHERE the spending now goes. Less goes towards music purchases, and more goes to DVDs and video games. The sales gains made by the movie and video game industries are almost a one-to-one correlation with the sales declines in the music industry, so downloading is not the sole culprit.

Now, about your conclusion (CD != entertainment dollar value), that might be another way to phrase it, but I wouldn't blame the format. The music they're releasing on CD != entertainment dollar value.

Quite the contrary, I think the format IS a big part of it when you think of what the primary competing home entertainment formats offer to consumers. For around the same price, CDs give you two-channel music, while DVDs give you picture, multichannel sound, and interactive features. For the price of about three CDs, video games give people a full interactive experience with production values that rival a lot of movies and network connectivity. For teenager or college kid, I can easily see how Grand Theft Auto or Madden football offer more entertainment value to them than three CDs. Once they pluck down $50 on that video game, then that's $50 less that could have gone towards buying CDs. Perceived value's the reason why so many new releases are now including bonus DVDs or online website keys with the CDs.

When the CD came out, it led to over a decade of double-digit growth in the music industry led in part by consumers transitioning their music libraries from LPs and cassettes over to CDs. People would never have switched over their libraries if the CD did not offer something of value to them.

[3-LockBox]

Just like Philips did with that goofy digital tape format in the early '90s (I forget what they called it), Sony came out with the dreadful mini-disc format, that was at least a more forward thinking approach to digital recording than DAT or the Philips thing, but it took too long to develope mini-disc into a decent sounding format, so CD-R and MP3 over-took it (and since most people started living on their computer, stand alone recorders were never going to make any real gain in the market). Sony released albums in mini-disc format as well, but no one bought into it knowing that a more recognizable home recording format was over the horizon, CD-R.

I think most people are going to buy what they're comfortable with, and that will probably be DVD-A, since they already have DVD players. Sure, a high percentage of buyers don't even know it exists (DVD-A), let alone understand that it's yet a different format from DVD, but product recognition is everything. They will understand that they need a 'universal player', but it will be because of DVD-A that they buy a new player (for the sake of audio playback anyway).

The success of DVD-A will hinge on how fast they can get 5.1 versions of classic albums out into the market, not just new releases. It will also hinge on how well those 5.1 remasters are done. I know I will be very weary of diving headlong into any new format, having bought some albums on CD three times over. I'd rather have a hi-res stereo version of an album that's done well, than a rush job 5.1 version. If 5.1 versions don't move the sonic marker ahead significantly, then count me out. (remember 'quad' anyone?) And just when they start to do justice to the older catalog via remastered, re-issued CDs, the new releases come out and sound like they were engineered using a portable radio for a monitor and wearing a bucket over their heads.

Most of the younger generation is already used to hearing super compressed music via downloading, which is may be why a lot of recent CD issues sound so terrible (since the RIAA, in their infinite wisdom, panders to the 15 to 20 yr old crowd). But since the newly released CD version is now so similar to the way an MP3 sounds, why bother buying the CD? And if the younger generation isn't concerned with sound quality, then I doubt they'll be too interested in multi-channel or hi-res playback. So it'll be the 30, 40 and 50 year-olds that buy (or don't buy) the next generation audio only playback format.

Does the younger crowd prefer vinyl to CD? They might if they are comparing it to MP3ish sounding CDs. Is the next generation driving vinyl sales? Kinda sounds far fetched, considering the price of a good LP rig, compared to any other playback set-up, and considering that vinyl medium costs as much or more than SACD or DVD-A. Some kids are too busy vomiting money into their compact sedans trying to squeeze another 5 horsepower from their 4-cylinder hotrods.

[Woochifer]

Ohh I think Downloading IS the issue. Peaple here download like mad and run their computer through their stereos. DVD sales and videp games have nothing to do with it. How many MUSIC DVDs are selling perhaps. I'm not saying that DVD and Video games are not sellling better - there is only so mauch a person can purchase. But what SACD has to do with any of this. That is an audio format only. To me SACD they've invested heavily into and are stuck with it - Sony is big enough to FORCE it on the consumer.

Distilling the music industry's woes down to JUST downloading is an overly simplistic view, and it's blindly buying into the RIAA's propaganda. The fact is that they have not been responsive to changes in radio, retailing, and new choices in home entertainment. Plus, since the advent of hip-hop and the rise of alternative in the early-90s, there's has not been anything that has emerged to take up the mantle from those genres, which have grown stale and repetitive. Music sales cannot grow if all that's getting offered up is rehashed versions of stuff from 10 years ago.

If you track the decline in revenue in the music industry and the revenue growth with video games and DVDs, you'll see that they track virtually one for one. Downloading alone cannot account for this kind of shift in consumer preferences. It really comes down to the DVD and video games offering up a new and exciting home entertainment experience that CDs cannot approach. THAT's what SACD and DVD-A have to do with the subject.

DVDs and video games have shifted the market towards multichannel audio. If music cannot keep up, then the CD's perceived value will continue to decline relative to those other entertainment formats. For $15-$20, you can either opt for a CD that has two-channel audio and maybe a few good songs if you're lucky, or you can buy a DVD that's got a pictures and multichannel audio plus interactive features. SACD and DVD-A offer up one avenue towards balancing the value equation, especially since the prices on those discs are roughly equal to what CDs cost.

I never argued that universal players were less popular. Of course the average person would rather spend $89.00 and get a player that plays all formats than spend $400.00 on a NAD cd player. Nothing really new there. And of course if in 2 years EVERY player has SACD in their universal player then naturally SACD will be called an unheralded success. What I'm saying is that the masses didn't ASK and demand that CRAPPY cds be replaced.

Well, the masses didn't ASK and DEMAND that crappy LPs and cassettes be replaced either when Sony/Philips developed the CD. The point with SACD and DVD-A is that the music industry HAS to compete for the entertainment dollar, and having a high quality multichannel audio format is but one part of the solution. The music industry was in its death throes as well in the early-80s, but a combination of new and exciting music plus the growth engine created by the CD led to a decade of double-digit sales growth.

Back in the early-80s, you had the exact same dynamic going on -- tired, recycled music and new competition from VHS movies and video games, and a recording industry that wanted to blame all their problems on cassette taping. The CD and fresh music rescued the music industry once before, because both of those developments added value to the music and persuaded people to spend money in a certain way. A comparable combination of new music and technology that adds value to that music is what will have to ultimately lift the industry out. It may not be SACD or DVD-A, but it certainly won't be the CD that will fuel growth in the music industry any more than the LP's nonexistent role when the music industry got out of its early-80s doldrums.

What happened was that CD sales flattened and started declining so to generate sales and hopefully get people to re-purchase all their cds on SACD so they can make a ton of cash. DVD's keep coming out with lousy first versions and then a second superior edition for the exact same reason - sell the person the same movie twice or more if you're lucky.

You KEEP repeating that "lousy first versions" argument, but still ignore the way that the parallel trend is to put out the superior special editions FIRST and THEN the crappy versions with lower list prices later on as a means of stimulating purchases once the initial sales push dissipates. The studios are testing both approaches to see what consumers respond to more once the new release sales decline -- lower prices for stripped down discs or rereleases with added features.

The verdict is not final, but it would not surprise me one bit if in the future you see more and more megaedition DVDs getting slotted into the initial release, and then stripped down and plunked into the bargain bin a year later. This is actually how the LP market sifted out in the 70s and 80s. The first release was where you got the gatefold jackets with the liner notes and occasional extras, and a lot of the subsequent budget releases eliminated the special album covers and substituted generic album sleeves with no lyrics or liner notes.

Of courese Sony is all about money and they are driving the changes - the consumer isn't asking for SACD - SACD soul purpose is to generate profit because CD sales are falling because of copying(since affordable CDWR came to market so did conveniently SACD and DVD-A). And they need something in order to con everyone into replacing their music with a new more expensive one - give them a reverberation effect out their rear speakers.

Obviously, you haven't heard a good SACD or DVD-A demonstration or checked the prices of high res discs lately, otherwise you wouldn't say something as ridiculous as that. Like I said, high res multichannel audio has been part of the discussion as long as DVD proposals have been out there. PLENTY of audio engineers will tell you that the 44.1/16 resolution of CDs is not the end all in audio quality, and being able to incorporate both higher resolution AND a multichannel carrier is simply allowing music to be reproduced using technology comparable to what studios currently use.

The format war between SACD and DVD-A is about profits, but the development of a high res multichannel format is not some con job like you say. Have you ACTUALLY HEARD a properly setup 5.1 SACD or DVD-A demonstration, and compared it to the two-channel CD version? Listening to Steely Dan's "Two Against Nature" and Pat Metheny's "Imaginary Day" and comparing the 5.1 mixes with the two-channel versions, the experience is not even close. The multichannel versions sound cleaner, more distinct, with far more stable imaging and soundstage as wide as the room can handle. This is about adding value to the listening experience. If customers respond by dumping their CD collections and stocking up on DVD-A and SACD selections, then it's THEIR choice. The industry's not shoving the formats down anybody's throat. It's not like adding SACD and DVD-A capabilities to a disc player suddenly disables the CD capability.

And it's not just adding reverberation out of the rear speakers like you claim, it's actual repurposing of the ORIGINAL multitrack master, which can yield staggering improvements in audio quality because the mixdown no longer has to be done using repetitive passes with older analog tape machines that audibly degrade with each pass. It's a FAR MORE involved process to produce a 5.1 DVD-A or SACD than it is to transfer an old two-track master tape onto CD. A well done mix can produce a huge improvement in the spatiality of the mix, and the sounds are more well defined because they no longer have to get bunched up into two channels and EQ'd with a phantom center. Considering all the strides in digital audio technology that studios have implemented since the early-80s, why would anyone want to stand pat with a listening format that's tied to the stone age of digital audio? Oh gee, I forgot, everything that recording engineers do is driven by profit, everything that's new is about profits, nothing that's new does anything better than the good ole' days. Yeah, and vintage PCs from that era were all that we ever needed -- all this Pentium 4, USB, DVD-ROM, CD-R, LCD screen, GUI, Wi-Fi stuff is nothing but profits. It was all shoved down the consumers' throats because they never DEMANDED it. Right.

[Woochifer]

Just like Philips did with that goofy digital tape format in the early '90s (I forget what they called it), Sony came out with the dreadful mini-disc format, that was at least a more forward thinking approach to digital recording than DAT or the Philips thing, but it took too long to develope mini-disc into a decent sounding format, so CD-R and MP3 over-took it (and since most people started living on their computer, stand alone recorders were never going to make any real gain in the market). Sony released albums in mini-disc format as well, but no one bought into it knowing that a more recognizable home recording format was over the horizon, CD-R.

The format you're thinking of was the DCC. It came out around the same time as the MiniDisc. The DCC failed because they never developed any ancillary equipment around it like portables and car audio systems, whereas the MiniDisc has always had a decent niche in those markets, despite its inferior audio quality. Actually, I thought that the DAT was a nifty format, but I heard that the complexity of the mechanisms made it impossible to produce cheaply.

I think most people are going to buy what they're comfortable with, and that will probably be DVD-A, since they already have DVD players. Sure, a high percentage of buyers don't even know it exists (DVD-A), let alone understand that it's yet a different format from DVD, but product recognition is everything. They will understand that they need a 'universal player', but it will be because of DVD-A that they buy a new player (for the sake of audio playback anyway).

Actually, I think the key to both SACD and DVD-A's success will hinge on backwards compatibility with the CD. That's why the DVD-A camp is working so frantically to get their upcoming hybrid Dual Disc ready. Retailers simply do not want to set aside space for new formats. If they can put a hybrid disc into the same bin as a CD, then it can work. Transitioning the market towards universal players and putting out simultaneous hybrid disc releases eliminates the barriers to adoption. The ultimate success with these barriers eliminated hinges entirely on the whether the consumer buys more music as a result of these enhancements.

The success of DVD-A will hinge on how fast they can get 5.1 versions of classic albums out into the market, not just new releases. It will also hinge on how well those 5.1 remasters are done. I know I will be very weary of diving headlong into any new format, having bought some albums on CD three times over. I'd rather have a hi-res stereo version of an album that's done well, than a rush job 5.1 version. If 5.1 versions don't move the sonic marker ahead significantly, then count me out. (remember 'quad' anyone?) And just when they start to do justice to the older catalog via remastered, re-issued CDs, the new releases come out and sound like they were engineered using a portable radio for a monitor and wearing a bucket over their heads.

That seems to be a prevailing sentiment among baby boomers, but I disagree. New releases are what drive the music industry, and getting to a point where the new releases standardize around the hybrid formats IMO are what will ultimately decide the success of the formats.

And it's not really possible to put out a flurry of 5.1 DVD-A or SACD titles like the record companies did with CDs, because the process of putting together a 5.1 version is so much more involved and time consuming. With CDs, all that the record companies had to do was find a two-track master and transfer it (the rush jobs that were done without regard for how a master tape might have been specifically EQ's for vinyl explains why so many early CDs sounded horrible). To get a 5.1 mix, you actually have to locate the original multitrack tapes and start over. A lot of these tapes might have alternate takes or sounds that require some kind of processing at a latter stage, and the sound engineer has to sort through all of that and figure out what was originally used in the final mix. And in a lot of cases, the original multitrack master tape is just not available. Missing master tapes for two songs is why Steely Dan's "Aja" has only been slated for two-channel SACD and not 5.1.

Also, supposedly most recordings done in the past few years have already been mixed in 5.1, and then repurposed for two-channel. So, getting newer music onto multichannel discs is an easier transition simply because the mixes have already been done and are waiting for a multichannel release.

One thing that I've noticed with some older recordings getting repurposed to 5.1 is that they don't have the same kind of spatiality and seamless imaging that I've heard from most newer recordings. I would have to guess that a lot of these older recordings just don't have the sound elements needed to create that kind of seamless envelopment.

Most of the younger generation is already used to hearing super compressed music via downloading, which is may be why a lot of recent CD issues sound so terrible (since the RIAA, in their infinite wisdom, panders to the 15 to 20 yr old crowd). But since the newly released CD version is now so similar to the way an MP3 sounds, why bother buying the CD? And if the younger generation isn't concerned with sound quality, then I doubt they'll be too interested in multi-channel or hi-res playback. So it'll be the 30, 40 and 50 year-olds that buy (or don't buy) the next generation audio only playback format.

I think that if the goal is to get young people to buy two-channel CDs, that horse has already left the barn. It's too late for that. Whether we're talking about MP3 or legal downloads, the market for these kinds of impulse purchases has already shifted. If we're trying to incentivize buying actual music discs, then I think that with multichannel audio there is a chance. One peculiar outcome of all the consumer spending that has shifted over to DVDs and videogames is that it has created a whole class of younger consumers savvy to multichannel audio. If you look at computer soundcards and multimedia speakers, it's all about 4.1 and 7.1 (4.1 is now the default configuration for newer soundcards and PC games). And with car audio, DVD-A and SACD are increasingly popping up as the 5.1 mobile market picks up. With this in mind, I think that multichannel is what young people increasingly expect from their home entertainment. Multichannel could work as an inducement. I'm not sure if they're impressed by high resolution audio, but they definitely respond to multichannel.

the thing about how pop CD's are mixed nowadays is that they are monitored through studio monitors that emulate the characteristics of car audio and small system speakers, because they know that's how the target will generally listen to them. Those CDs sound pretty good on a car system and good through a mini system. It's only through a higher resolution system that they don't necessarily sound their best.

Does the younger crowd prefer vinyl to CD? They might if they are comparing it to MP3ish sounding CDs. Is the next generation driving vinyl sales? Kinda sounds far fetched, considering the price of a good LP rig, compared to any other playback set-up, and considering that vinyl medium costs as much or more than SACD or DVD-A. Some kids are too busy vomiting money into their compact sedans trying to squeeze another 5 horsepower from their 4-cylinder hotrods.

The cachet value of vinyl with younger audiences has never been about sound quality (or at least solely about sound quality); it has more to do with vinyl's iconoclast image and its popularity in DJ, indie, and hip-hop circles, which have been harbingers of hipness for years. CDs are viewed as cold and corporate, while vinyl is more about being different and out of the box. At some point, every trend that we thought got deep sixed has its day in the revival circle.

Remember how disco was dead and buried by the early-80s? Twentysomethings of today don't remember the days of "disco sucks".

Remember how baby boomers thought that they "understood" their kids and that the kids would listen to the exact same rock and roll that the parents grew up with? Along came hip-hop and the very same "TURN THAT CRAP DOWN" tirades that baby boomer parents thought that they would never say to their own kids!

Remember how children of the 50s and 60s rebelled against the "square" music that their parents listened to? Along comes the retro lounge scene, and their kids of the 90s wind up borrowing vintage outfits and old Sinatra and Count Basie records from their GRANDPARENTS because they wouldn't dare think of raiding their dorky baby boomer parents' closets!

Remember the big iron muscle cars with the Hurst shifters, garden hose carbs, and the oversized air intakes? Well, today you got the souped up 4-bangers. Displacement, who needs that?

Now I've noticed that there's a distinct trend back to pastels and synthpop. This is the stuff that I thought had been buried deep into history, but it's now showing signs of coming back as well. Maybe in a few years when multichannel has taken hold, we'll start waxing nostalgic about the cassette tape!

[RGA]

Woochifer you are narrow minded you believe that if it sells and the democracy buys it it must have superior value. If it is new and it sells it must be superior to what came before. Sony is only in business to create superior sounding products and obviouisly care nothing about profits - their primary goal is to spare no expensie and make the best sound for the good of capturing musicians intent. BS.

My computer is 5 years old. The reason new computers(at least part of the reason) are $400.00Cdn including all in one printer and 17 inch monitor is because if you really look at the important to most people aspects doesn't do anything my obsolete computer does. It does it faster but there is a value association. People know the price of everything and the value of nothing are the ones who buy whatever is doled out as the new thing.

The high end industry is very small - but MP3 is NEW and it is hardly GOOD. But it's not sold to anal audiophiles so who cares. There are reasons we still have LP versus CD debates - the regular Joe non stereo guy could give a rats ass. I'm not a Car guy - give me a reliable as hell Honda Civic and let me stick gas in it it goes for 10 years and i'm happy. The niche car guy in his loaded up sports thing wouldn't want a Honda hatchback.

I have no problem with all in one machines, I have no problem if Sony wants to flood the market with hybrids and I have no problem if people want to listen to SACD or buy Digital amplifiers or DVD-A and listen to it all with 7 small surround speakers and a sub - I don;t even mind if they think that sounds better than old school design Audio Note speaker, Audio Note turntable and a stone age SET amp.

Luckily my dealer has had their surround room designed and built by B&W - so people can listen to the ultimate in front projection SACD with the best Denon receiver and allthe cutting edge stuff and walk right out of that room and listen to the Stone age 2 channel gear of Audio Note and pay considerably more money for the privaledge. Obviously the 2 channel folks are clueless and don't know what good sound is.


I suppose I should be happy that at least everyone can still buy whatever it is they like best or want the most. Be pretty boring if there was only one option.