SACDs

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by John72953

True! However....paying extra for an album one particularly enjoys is very satisfying.

True. If they had some Metallica albums, I would plunk down $40...maybe.

I did order the Downward Spiral SACD, so that should be cool. About $12 used.

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

True. If they had some Metallica albums, I would plunk down $40...maybe.

I did order the Downward Spiral SACD, so that should be cool. About $12 used.

$12...that a good price. Nice!

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

$50 for a used copy on Amazon. Sheesh. I'd love to get into this format big time, but there's a serious lack of quantity and the ones that are interesting are just so damned expensive.

You're about ten years too late. Most of the out of print titles once sat on shelves, not selling at all. It was the lack of sales back then that caused the lack of mainstream albums making it to SACD.

It's very, very expensive now to get into the format if you don't like Classical or Jazz music. Those genres have an abundance of cheap titles, while the Rock SACDs are mostly out of print and fetch big dollars. We are getting a few Rock albums from labels like MFSL and Analogue Productions in recent years.

There is also the possibility of trying out the SACDs before paying an arm and a leg for the OOP ones. Google "PS3 SACD Ripping" or something similar to read more of the discussions on possibly downloading some rare SACDs and burning them.

[solarrdadd]

Originally Posted by John72953

True! However....paying extra for an album one particularly enjoys is very satisfying.

well, I don't know about that, but I would say that getting an album that one truely enjoys, despite having to pay extra for it, is very satisfying!

my spin on big John's words!

with as good as HDTracks is doing customer wise I'm surprised that more artist aren't releasing physical hi-rez media like SACD's. despite the fact that i keep hearing it's a dead media, there are tons of folks looking and wishing that they could get there hands on SACD's.

it's not a wonder that we haven't given up on SACD & DVD-a yet since Blu-Audio isn't really moving at all (or let me say very, very little) and no new modern R&B, PoP or Rock are not being released on any of the listed media. it seems to me that it's the industry that isn't interested in keeping up with the audio technology available to us.

we are constantly searching out hi-rez audio in whatever form is available yet the industry is running the other way. I refuse to believe that it will cost the labels so much to even release limited edtions of hi-rez versions of their albums as a test; i think they would be surprised to see how many sales would be made for those physical hi-rez media.

with so many blu-ray players on the market, why haven't they been pushing blu-audio? with so many owners old & new of SACD/DVD-a capable players (oh have they heard of this little known company called OPPO?) you'd think they would be moving more towards getting the money that's burning a whole in those folks wallets to want to buy those items. Also, there are so many folks with HTiB systems and other multichannel & 2 channel audio systems some high end and others not so much but all are or could be capable of playing any of the big 3 in hi-rez audio (with an OPPO or something) the market seams ripe for the picking----yes, MP3 & iTunes aside, i think folks are ready and willing.

if they make it, believe me, lots of folks will buy them, yep, I'd be one of them too!

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by solarrdadd

well, I don't know about that, but I would say that getting an album that one truely enjoys, despite having to pay extra for it, is very satisfying!
my spin on big John's words!

You said that better than I did...so thanks!

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by solarrdadd

we are constantly searching out hi-rez audio in whatever form is available yet the industry is running the other way. I refuse to believe that it will cost the labels so much to even release limited edtions of hi-rez versions of their albums as a test; i think they would be surprised to see how many sales would be made for those physical hi-rez media.

with so many blu-ray players on the market, why haven't they been pushing blu-audio? with so many owners old & new of SACD/DVD-a capable players (oh have they heard of this little known company called OPPO?) you'd think they would be moving more towards getting the money that's burning a whole in those folks wallets to want to buy those items. Also, there are so many folks with HTiB systems and other multichannel & 2 channel audio systems some high end and others not so much but all are or could be capable of playing any of the big 3 in hi-rez audio (with an OPPO or something) the market seams ripe for the picking----yes, MP3 & iTunes aside, i think folks are ready and willing.

As proven by businesses like Audio Fidelity and other boutique labels, there is definitely a profitable niche catering to the audiophile crowd. The problem now is that Hi-Rez is such a small market that the major labels (now down to only three left in the world) see no reason to enter it. They could easily eek out a small profit on Blu-ray and SACD releases right now, but all of their projects have to meet a certain level of ROI that dwarfs the size of the current Hi-Rez market. Since the borrowing of capital is much less liquid now, there is little incentive to invest capital into expanding the market as in past formats.

Once a sku can't sell at least 20,000 units or more, the major labels are much less interested in releasing it. That is why we see them licensing many albums now for SACD and downloads to other entities like HDTracks and others. Outside of a few mega-albums from superstars like the Beatles, the market for a Blu-ray audio disc is less than 5000 units.

[blu2]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Outside of a few mega-albums from superstars like the Beatles, the market for a Blu-ray audio disc is less than 5000 units.

Was there ever any sales data for Tom Petty's Mojo on Blu Ray Audio, or Damn The Torpedoes?

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by blu2

Was there ever any sales data for Tom Petty's Mojo on Blu Ray Audio, or Damn The Torpedoes?

Sorry, I don't know that answer. Warner is supposed to be announcing something big for Hi-Rez in the next couple of months.

[dobyblue]

I think the market could be bigger than they think, but they definitely need some big titles to kick start it though, like The Beatles 24/192 catalogue, and Thriller.

Including Blu-ray only as part of $100+ box sets ain't gonna cut it, fact it actually HURTS adoption because I'd easily have bought both those Pink Floyd Blu-ray discs as standalone $25 SKU's, but the box set is too rich for my blood.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

I think the market could be bigger than they think, but they definitely need some big titles to kick start it though, like The Beatles 24/192 catalogue, and Thriller.

Including Blu-ray only as part of $100+ box sets ain't gonna cut it, fact it actually HURTS adoption because I'd easily have bought both those Pink Floyd Blu-ray discs as standalone $25 SKU's, but the box set is too rich for my blood.

Totally agree, though I do think we will eventually see the Blu-rays released on their own around $30 or $40. The labels know there is a market for them at that price. Once the box set inventory is sold the BDs will be sold individually.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by solarrdadd

it's not a wonder that we haven't given up on SACD & DVD-a yet since Blu-Audio isn't really moving at all (or let me say very, very little) and no new modern R&B, PoP or Rock are not being released on any of the listed media. it seems to me that it's the industry that isn't interested in keeping up with the audio technology available to us.

You said it, friend. DVD video technology (i.e. standard DVDs) have been around for a good decade now. Even if studios started releasing on DVD-V because many people don't have DVD Audio or SACD players you could fit an album onto a disc in 96/24 stereo. DVD-A/SACD allows for 192/24 multichannel audio, and BD-A allows for that plus 1080p video!

It is all a question of laziness. The music market is now just a low-resolution, compressed digital downloading wasteland of singles and 256k "High Resolution" downloads from the iTunes store.

I am very thankful that most of my music tastes are of the vintage variety, but there are still artists releasing music now that I would pay a lot of money to listen to through a high-quality music release format.

Heck, I was willing to pay $35 for an imported Journey: Eclipse LP until I figured out it was a copy of the CD master. Compare that to the $10 I spent on the CD, or the piddly amount someone would spend to get 2 or 3 of their better songs via download on iTunes.

[LMN8R]

When the DVD player in the spare room the grandkids spend the night in 2-3 nights a week finally died last week I needed to replace it. I had owned it for 10 years, my first DVD player. Instead of just buying a $30 replacement (which would have been fine in that room) I decided to spend a few extra bucks and upgrade my living room system. I moved my old Philips upconvert player (which was only still in the living room because it could play WMV files) to the spare room and replaced it with a Pioneer DV-610 multi-region DVD/DVD-A/SACD player.

I received the player from Amazon today. This was absolutely the best $100 I've spent on my system. Tonight I listened to Pink Floyd's DSOTM SACD for the first time, the first SACD I've ever heard. The only music experience I can compare it to was the first time I listened to Boston's debut album in 1976 when I was 14. It was audio nirvana. I have Dire Straits: Brothers in Arms on the way. I can already tell my Blu-ray buying is going to slow for a while as I catch up on a few other titles.

If you are on the fence about buying an SACD player IMO it's worth every penny. I should have done it a long time ago. I still hope BD-Audio takes off but in the mean time I'm certainly glad I made this purchase.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by singhcr

You said it, friend. DVD video technology (i.e. standard DVDs) have been around for a good decade now. Even if studios started releasing on DVD-V because many people don't have DVD Audio or SACD players you could fit an album onto a disc in 96/24 stereo. DVD-A/SACD allows for 192/24 multichannel audio, and BD-A allows for that plus 1080p video!

Well, technically, SACD does not allow for 24/192. It uses DSD which is described as a 1-bit 2.4 MHz approach that more closely approximates analog.

[LMN8R]

The Dire Straits SACD was waiting on me when I got home and I took it for a spin. It's fantastic as well, this is going to get expensive I can tell already. I'm hooked.

[Louisville Slugger]

I just discovered Aerosmith's Toys in the Attic album. I've been listening to it for days.

Too bad the SACD is so expensive,

[danfaz]

Originally Posted by LMN8R

Tonight I listened to Pink Floyd's DSOTM SACD for the first time, the first SACD I've ever heard...

Wait til you hear Wish You Were Here!

[Hammie]

Originally Posted by danfaz

Wait til you hear Wish You Were Here!

I have the BD version, but 'Welcome to the Machine' was my fav surround track.

[mywhitenoise]

Originally Posted by danfaz

Wait til you hear Wish You Were Here!

I hope they eventually release Animals and Meddle on a high resolution surround format. I find it doubtful, though.

[LMN8R]

Originally Posted by danfaz

Wait til you hear Wish You Were Here!

It's high on my list of "to buys".
I have Eric Clapton Slowhand on the way. Although the reviews are not stellar, the price was right and I enjoy the album.

[frank_t]

Originally Posted by mywhitenoise

I hope they eventually release Animals and Meddle on a high resolution surround format. I find it doubtful, though.

we should email analog productions and let them know...

while i suspect they pretty much try to produce what *they* enjoy, i suspect they would love to hear from us.