SACDs

[Gremal]

I would think if your Oppo had issues, you could find a mod'er in Taiwan or HK who could not only fix it but modify it to optimize performance and play any region BD, if you so desired.

I'm curious to hear the Marantz now that it outputs DSD over HDMI. I always liked Marantz design, but the sound has let me down every time I auditioned one. Oppo is the way to go.

[ManUtd]

Originally Posted by Better in Blu

Oppo service will work with you to resolve the problem without sending the player back. If need be they will pay shipping costs. They are a extraordinary company.

I doubt Oppo is going to pay shipping from/to Taiwan (where Travis is now).

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by Travis

Speaking of BD players with SACD capabilities, what player is the best option atm. First, I am in Taiwan, so no Oppo's. Sony? Marantz? (new UD7005 coming out that has me interested, but may be too pricey), Denon? Cambridge Audio? NAD? Cannot think of other BD/SACD players.

Given your location, go with one of the many BD players from Sony that play SACDs. Some of the high-end Sony BD models sound surprisingly good.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Gremal

No, Sony and others heavily marketed and advertized SACD at great expense. Some examples include ads in Rolling Stone and New Yorker, as well as the usual audio rags, radio giveaways for Rolling Stones tickets that announced the release of the ABKCO SACDs and even explained SACD to a lay audience, Sony-sponsored kiosks in retail such as Best Buy that touted the multichannel capabilities of SACD and were stocked with titles. Many newspaper articles were also published. If you had any interest in digital audio and sound quality, you had to be living under a rock for the last 12 years to have avoided hearing of SACD.

Sorry...the industry did a really lousy job. A few ads in a few magazines is not a marketing campaign. It's not enough to appeal to only audiophiles...that's actually a very small market. Best Buy stores are prolific, but crap. The Dylan and Rolling Stones SACD remasters were failures from a sales standpoint. (I grabbed them up and I didn't even have an SACD player at the time, but I'm an audiophile.) And you know Columbia (CBS-Sony) remixed lots of stuff into 5.1 and then never released it. Hopefully, they'll reconsider for Blu-ray audio. One example is the Al Kooper-Steve Stills-Mike Bloomfield "Supersession" album. The 5.1 mix was completed years ago.

The industry should have had a marketing campaign that made the case that if you weren't listening to SACD and especially if you weren't listening to SACD 5.1 (or DVD-Audio 5.1), then you weren't hearing the music the way it was intended. At the very least, this would have helped the fight against illegal downloads and it also would have helped the change in the market from an album market to a singles market (assuming they didn't release any 5.1 singles), which is what's killing the business today.

And the fight between SACD and DVD-Audio didn't help. Consumers don't buy when they're confused (just as Blu-ray didn't take off until DVD-HD died.) The industry learned that back in the vinyl Quad era.

I never saw an SACD setup or a 5.1 setup in a single record store. For the average consumer on their cruddy home systems, they simply couldn't hear the difference between CD and SACD. Besides, consumers have always opted for convenience over quality and downloads are more convenient. But had 5.1 been properly demonstrated, there is a big WOW factor and people would have bought (IMO). But it rarely was (and in fact, still rarely is.) Most electronics stores have walls and walls of TVs, but they're rarely hooked up to any kind of sound system. And when they have HDTV "listening rooms", they're rarely operating properly or inviting to average consumers. They should always have something "cool" playing with a big sign stating, "come on in and listen to the state of the art". But in most electronics stores, they give you dirty looks if you walk into their listening rooms. This is why the non-esoteric audio industry is in such bad shape.

But let's say you're correct: that Sony did do a good marketing job on SACD. So then consumers were aware of the product and voted with their dollars: they didn't want it. End of story.

The RIAA reports SACD, DVD-Audio and analog cassettes (!) together because the numbers are so small. In 2009, only 100,000 units were sold in the U.S. representing $4 million in revenue at list price. That's NOTHING. Even vinyl sold far more and in spite of the hype, vinyl sales are nothing more than a rounding error. Vinyl sold 3.2 million units representing $60 million in revenue at list price. That's out of a $7.7 billion U.S. industry (which, incidentally, is half of what it was in 1999).

[Travis]

Thanks for all the suggestioins. Pretty much comes down to Sony or Marantz BD/SACD player.

Originally Posted by Gremal

I would think if your Oppo had issues, you could find a mod'er in Taiwan or HK who could not only fix it but modify it to optimize performance and play any region BD, if you so desired.

I'm curious to hear the Marantz now that it outputs DSD over HDMI. I always liked Marantz design, but the sound has let me down every time I auditioned one. Oppo is the way to go.

I'm sure I could get it fixed in Taipei, for a price, if anything went wrong. But I bought a US model of a JVC DV camera years ago here on the gray market, when it needed to be replaced I couldn't get one, wound up with one that was all Japanese (buttons and menus). Unless it is a cheapish product, say under a $100, I cannot buy outside of Taiwan. Need to know I can get service.

But if someone want to give me an Oppo from America, I can send you my address.

The new Marantz UD7006 looks nice. And a rack of Marantz gear, even if only 3 pieces would be pretty.

Originally Posted by ManUtd

I doubt Oppo is going to pay shipping from/to Taiwan (where Travis is now).

You are right. I contacted them last year to find out the details. They will ship to Taiwan and service it if needed, but I have to pay for shipping.

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Given your location, go with one of the many BD players from Sony that play SACDs. Some of the high-end Sony BD models sound surprisingly good.

Thinking that is what it will be. Just not sure if I can get one (modded) that plays region 1 DVDs.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Sorry...the industry did a really lousy job. A few ads in a few magazines is not a marketing campaign.

There were aggressive marketing campaigns--not just ads but Sony reached out both to customers with hybrid discs of significant catalog segments of the biggest artists ever (Dylan, Stones) and to other labels, basically subsidizing batches of SACDs from major and boutique labels alike. Sony took it all on its shoulders at great expense and gave SACD a real shot to succeed. But there was just no way to compete with the rise of MP3 downloads.

It's not enough to appeal to only audiophiles...that's actually a very small market.

Well just who do you think would be in the initial market for SACDs? Audiophiles and HT (multichannel) fanatics. Those are the only consumers who would move from CD to SACD such that the format could get traction.

The Dylan and Rolling Stones SACD remasters were failures from a sales standpoint. And you know Columbia (CBS-Sony) remixed lots of stuff into 5.1 and then never released it. Hopefully, they'll reconsider for Blu-ray audio. One example is the Al Kooper-Steve Stills-Mike Bloomfield "Supersession" album. The 5.1 mix was completed years ago.

It doesn't make sense to criticize Sony for releasing Dylan SACDs, then turn around and criticize the label for not releasing a much more esoteric title that never sold anywhere near as well as the Dylan titles. Why would a label release a poor-selling title if it's bigger titles failed to sell? It wouldn't and shouldn't. The onslaught of MP3 cannabilized sales of all optical discs.

The industry should have had a marketing campaign that made the case that if you weren't listening to SACD and especially if you weren't listening to SACD 5.1 (or DVD-Audio 5.1), then you weren't hearing the music the way it was intended.

How can you justify that campaign when less than 1% off all recordings were engineered for multichannel and less than 1% of artists intend their music to be heard that way? Marketing is one thing. Lying is another.

At the very least, this would have helped the fight against illegal downloads

How? The painpoint for consumers downloading MP3s was cost. They were getting any title they wanted for free on Napster. They don't care about 5.1.

I never saw an SACD setup or a 5.1 setup in a single record store.

I saw little 5.1 kiosks in Best Buy and Tower. Do you realize how much money Sony had to pony up to install those? Sony gave it a shot and to expect more is totally nuts.

For the average consumer on their cruddy home systems, they simply couldn't hear the difference between CD and SACD. Besides, consumers have always opted for convenience over quality and downloads are more convenient. But had 5.1 been properly demonstrated, there is a big WOW factor and people would have bought (IMO).

So you admit that consumers will not spend the bucks to optimize their 2.0 system for music but then you predict that a format that had no traction would convince these same customers to rush out and buy a 5.1 system at a time when the only system gaining traction was iPod.

Most electronics stores have walls and walls of TVs, but they're rarely hooked up to any kind of sound system.

Yes, that's because store managers are analyzing the sales figures and alotting real estate for merchandise they can move.

But let's say you're correct: that Sony did do a good marketing job on SACD. So then consumers were aware of the product and voted with their dollars: they didn't want it. End of story.

Yes, I'm saying it's the consumer's fault SACD failed and it's to Sony's credit that the format was introduced and expertly marketed for several years so that it became a niche format still being released by boutique labels. The real story is that downloadable music pulled the carpet out from under the major labels and totally shifted the paradigm of selling records. This impacted the entire industry. A similar thing happened to newspapers/publishers. There's plenty of roadkill in the digital revolution. The failure of SACD to catch on didn't happen in a vacuum.

If you think you can successfully market SACD to a consumer market, you should put together a business plan and pitch it to investors but I don't see a way to do it profitably.

[dobyblue]

Consumers won't buy into a format involved in a format war. Having to buy two players to support the new formats was a killer, not having a single format was a killer.

.mp3 can shoulder a lot of the blame, but a format war will always = going nowhere.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Consumers won't buy into a format involved in a format war. Having to buy two players to support the new formats was a killer, not having a single format was a killer.

.mp3 can shoulder a lot of the blame, but a format war will always = going nowhere.

Not sure that makes sense either or BD audio would be catching on, as it has no real competitor now. It depends on consumer need. VHS vs Beta war resulted in home video being implemented with VHS as the consumer choice. HD DVD vs Blu-ray resulted in BD as the consumer choice. In SACD vs DVD-A, far fewer DVD-A titles were released and DVD-A had less traction and the format war ended. Yet SACD did not get enough traction either. Why? Simple: MP3 was the consumer choice. Consumers didn't see a need for high res or multichannel audio at a time when they were increasingly listening to music through ear buds.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Not sure that makes sense either or BD audio would be catching on, as it has no real competitor now.

LOL, yeah that makes a lot of sense when BD-Audio releases have not even started yet outside of a HANDFUL of artist-driven releases with no marketing.

The SACD/DVD-A format war never ended, the major studios just excused themselves. The same thing would have happened with Blu-ray/HD DVD if Warner had not dropped HD DVD and all that would be left would be Sony releases until even they drop out leaving niche releases only. Consumers didn't choose Blu-ray until Warner chose Blu-ray, then a chain of events including major retailers choosing sides allowed the format to start seeing adoption numbers worth mentioning. Until then 2:1 only mattered to early adopters like us, in reality Blu-ray's market share was under 5%. It was a fun way to rebut unhappy HD DVD fans claiming "but the consumer did choose Blu-ray 2:1" but it was just being facetious, I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to suggest either format was heading anywhere without WB choosing sides and allowing the format war to continue.

SACD's lopsided number of available titles is because of classical and jazz releases, the pop/rock genre they were fairly even Stevens.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

LOL, yeah that makes a lot of sense when BD-Audio releases have not even started yet outside of a HANDFUL of artist-driven releases with no marketing.

They have not started yet because there is a small niche market for it that major labels are less likely to pursue than boutique labels. SACD and DVD-A failed not because of a format war but because there was not a significant market and that's why BD-A would fail as a general consumer format. The fact is that it will not unseat downloads as the mass consumer format. Not a chance.

The SACD/DVD-A format war never ended, the major studios just excused themselves. The same thing would have happened with Blu-ray/HD DVD if Warner had not dropped HD DVD and all that would be left would be Sony releases until even they drop out leaving niche releases only. Consumers didn't choose Blu-ray until Warner chose Blu-ray, then a chain of events including major retailers choosing sides allowed the format to start seeing adoption numbers worth mentioning. Until then 2:1 only mattered to early adopters like us, in reality Blu-ray's market share was under 5%. It was a fun way to rebut unhappy HD DVD fans claiming "but the consumer did choose Blu-ray 2:1" but it was just being facetious, I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to suggest either format was heading anywhere without WB choosing sides and allowing the format war to continue.

No one believed BD was heading anywhere before WB went BD exclusive? Not even Sony? It was clear to market analysis that an HD format would rapidly overtake sales of DVD because of the advent of HDTV. The 2:1 adoption rate you cite was a good indication of consumer choice. But there is really no analogy to SACD vs DVD-A because consumers were turning to downloads for music but not for movies.

SACD's lopsided number of available titles is because of classical and jazz releases, the pop/rock genre they were fairly even Stevens.

Yes and that's because and the market for SACD was audiophiles who tend to gravitate toward classical and jazz.

[zicmubleu]

Originally Posted by Gremal

...
Steely Dan - Aja
James Taylor - JT
Various - Reggae in High-Fi
Stevie Ray Vaughan - Couldn't Stand the Weather
Stevie Wonder - Songs in the Key of Life

Some of these won't win audio awards, but I consider them favorites. If you're interested in other genres let me know.

If I had read your earlier post I would have seen the answer to my question about the quality of a SACD album. So for me, the CD will probably sound as good as the SACD since apparently they have been mastered the same. I was hoping they put a bit more effort into it when they planned on a SACD release.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by zicmubleu

If I had read your earlier post I would have seen the answer to my question about the quality of a SACD album. So for me, the CD will probably sound as good as the SACD since apparently they have been mastered the same. I was hoping they put a bit more effort into it when they planned on a SACD release.

Just because the source material or original recording wouldn't win any audio awards doesn't mean you won't hear the benefits of SACD. Nor does it mean the remaster engineer isn't putting all necessary effort into it. I can easily hear the improvement even among those I listed that aren't great recordings to begin with.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Gremal

They have not started yet because there is a small niche market for it that major labels are less likely to pursue than boutique labels. SACD and DVD-A failed not because of a format war but because there was not a significant market and that's why BD-A would fail as a general consumer format. The fact is that it will not unseat downloads as the mass consumer format. Not a chance.

Incorrect, they have not started yet because they want market adoption. We already have info from Atlantic Records' CEO that WB will be announcing support of high resolution audio at CES 2012.

SACD and DVD-A failed because of the format war. Done properly Blu-ray will not fail as a mass market adopted music format.

No-one has suggested Blu-ray will be more popular than downloads, where are you coming up with this stuff?

No one believed BD was heading anywhere before WB went BD exclusive? Not even Sony?

We were talking consumers, don't try and change the goalposts.

[Clark Kent]

If the music labels understand the diminished expectations in term of sales, I see Blu-ray audio as having a chance at establishing itself as at least an option for consumers. I do not see it being mass market like selling 100,000 units, but could see popular, new releases doing decent numbers on the format.

The road will be tough and long, hopefully Warner commits some resources to it.

[BIslander]

SACD and DVD-Audio failed for a number of reasons - among them: the format war, the requirement of dedicated players and complicated set-ups, the small installed base of home surround systems, the convenience/portability of other formats, and the lack of interest in high quality playback.

High resolution audio on Blu-ray has some advantages - among them: no competing formats, no new players or set-ups required, and a growing number of home theater systems. But, it still faces the challenges of convenience/portability and the public lack of interest. We are several years into Blu-ray now and the small number of music releases is discouraging. While some of us would love to see BD Audio take off, it's looking like another niche market.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Incorrect, they have not started yet because they want market adoption.

I see, so in order to get market adoption you don't introduce your format.

Er...

SACD and DVD-A failed because of the format war.

No, if the key issue was that war, one of the two would have won and been the new consumer format. The fact that neither made it proves that the real war was with downloads.

Done properly Blu-ray will not fail as a mass market adopted music format. No-one has suggested Blu-ray will be more popular than downloads, where are you coming up with this stuff?

You're saying Blu-ray audio is guaranteed to succeed as a mass market adopted format if done properly. Right now only downloads are succeeding, having thoroughly trounced any spinning disc in a way the labels still haven't recovered from, and there is no indication that the consumer market would ever again embrace an optical format for music. No matter what is done properly it's hard to see how BD-A could be anything but a niche format for audiophiles and surround sound enthusiasts. Just like SACD.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Gremal

I see, so in order to get market adoption you don't introduce your format.

Er...

Blu-ray Disc was introduced in 2006. The format used for music when they introduce Blu-ray Audio will be identical to the format used for movies since 2006. They, being the major studio labels, want adoption in households before they introduce Blu-ray for music. I think the meaning of the statement was very clear. You have market adoption of Blu-ray, you don't need to buy ANY new equipment to listen to music Blu-ray Discs.

No, if the key issue was that war, one of the two would have won and been the new consumer format. The fact that neither made it proves that the real war was with downloads.

Incorrect, as long as two remain, none shall win. There can be only one. Neither side was willing to withdraw and after 6 years of support all major labels had stopped altogether. This is not to dismiss the importance of the removal of CD singles and the introduction of .mp3's, but no regular consumer will be interested in a format when he has to buy TWO new players and THREE pair of RCA cables for each player just to listen to the formats.

You're saying Blu-ray audio is guaranteed to succeed as a mass market adopted format if done properly. Right now only downloads are succeeding, having thoroughly trounced any spinning disc in a way the labels still haven't recovered from, and there is no indication that the consumer market would ever again embrace an optical format for music. No matter what is done properly it's hard to see how BD-A could be anything but a niche format for audiophiles and surround sound enthusiasts. Just like SACD.

Any spinning disc? Like CD? Last I checked the Nielsen Soundscan stats CD was still king despite several years of decline and single track digital downloads had finally reached a plateau and stalled.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...68Q2FM20100927

LONDON | Mon Sep 27, 2010 4:07pm EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - The rapid rise of single digital music sales has stalled in the United States, the world's biggest and most important market, with sales in the first half of 2010 flat compared with a year before.

According to research group Nielsen, digital sales for single track downloads were flat in the U.S. market after a 13 percent increase from 2008 to 2009 and 28 percent growth from 2007 to 2008.

When combined with the growth in digital album sales, overall digital music sales were up over 5 percent in the U.S.

Major music companies such as Vivendi's Universal Music and EMI have pinned their hopes on boosting legal digital sales to counter online piracy and the collapse in CD sales.

Jean Littolff, managing director of Nielsen Music, told Reuters the flat U.S. single sales could be due to weak consumer confidence, the appeal of new music releases and confusion over the many different ways people can buy music online.

"I think this is a plateau, it doesn't mean that this digital consumption is going to drop significantly," he said. "It's a plateau, but it's not yet saturation."

In 2011 digital music sales are only up 1.6% on the strength of The Beatles catalogue.

In the first half of 2010 there were three times as many album sales on CD vs. digital downloads. With singles included CD still dominated revenue compared to digital downloads.

Nielsen Soundscan data, first half of 2010.

Overall album sales: -11% (compared to Q1~2 2009)
Physical album sales: -17.7% (112 Million units sold)
Digital album sales: +13.7% (42 Million units sold)

Almost three times as many albums sold on CD vs. DD.

By comparison physical album sales dropped around 30% in 2007, so the bleeding has gone down over the last couple years rather than up surprisingly.

Individiual track sales: -0.2% (597 Million songs sold)

Vinyl album sales: +9.1% (1.3 Million units sold)

Despite the decline in percentage, I don't think anyone would call over a billion dollars woth of sales in six months (if you take a lowly average of 9.99 price point for CD's) being "trounced".

End of year data.

http://www.billboard.com/news/u-s-al...04137859.story

For the first time in the digital era, overall music unit sales -- which count each sale of an album, digital track and music video as one unit -- fell 2.4% to 1.51 billion units from the 1.55 billion units in 2009.

2010 stats:

CD album sales - 239.9 million
DD album sales - 86.3 million

If WB announces support of downloadable HR tracks only then clearly there will be no place for Blu-ray. I hope they will announce support for Blu-ray music releases because I believe the market will support it far more readily than they supported two formats embroiled in a format war with expensive players (plural) that required more complex connecitons.

Blu-ray - sub-$99 players, $5 HDMI cable, biggety-bam.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Right now only downloads are succeeding, having thoroughly trounced any spinning disc in a way the labels still haven't recovered from, and there is no indication that the consumer market would ever again embrace an optical format for music.

Downloads are not really succeeding, they are just cheap for the labels to implement. The music industry is a shell of its former shelf, as digital downloads are not replacing the lost revenue from the decline in physical media.

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by Gremal

...No matter what is done properly it's hard to see how BD-A could be anything but a niche format for audiophiles and surround sound enthusiasts. Just like SACD.

I tend to agree. People want convenience and don't care about quality. Physical media is dead in the mainstream market. Video stores are all closing and it's getting harder and harder to find a music store these days.

I don't agree with it. I love SACD, wish it had replaced regular CD's in terms of adoption. But it didn't and it won't. And neither will BD-A.

[dobyblue]

But Blu-ray doesn't need to replace CD to be considered mass market adopted. Digital album sales are only 1/3rd of CD's and they're substantially considered mass market.

With more and more people getting into surround sound, discovering about fidelity through online forums, HDMI-age, 24/192 DAC's in players for under $99, it's very easy to see why the labels may give Blu-ray a shot for music releases as the potential for a sustainable market has all the right facets in place.

With all the surround mixes including quad mixes already done there is no shortage of catalogue titles to choose from in the initial push. Add in The Beatles on Blu-ray and finally releasing the 5.1 mix of Thriller and they could be off to a great start.

Vinyl albums only sell around 13,000 copies a year for the bigger artists (Pearl Jam, etc.) and the fact they can sell that many copies alone keeps them pressing wax.