-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Free SACD with Nov. 21st Rolling Stone Magazine!


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
133 replies to this topic

#1 of 134 Lee Scoggins

Lee Scoggins

    Producer

  • 6,396 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 30 2001
  • Real Name:Lee

Posted October 10 2003 - 09:42 AM

This is a great promotion for a hirez format: give away a disc to people who like to read about music...

http://www.highfidel....umber=13087880

Posted Image
Viewing: Sony KDSXBR150, Sony Bluray S570, ATT Uverse
Listening: Sony SCD777ES, Benchmark DAC1Pre, VPI/Modwright SWP9SE/Lyra Argo, Audio Research Ref3/VT100, Maggie 1.7s

 


#2 of 134 Marc Colella

Marc Colella

    Screenwriter

  • 2,607 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 19 1999

Posted October 10 2003 - 12:41 PM

I'm sure most people will purchase the magazine for the SACD disc, and not for the "print layer". Posted Image

Posted Image

#3 of 134 Rob M.

Rob M.

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 127 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 13 2002

Posted October 10 2003 - 01:13 PM

Also, I don't think people who "like to read about music" read Rolling Stone. That magazine has been trash for serveral years now.

It is a good promotion, though.
"So if you want my address it's number one at the end of the bar
Where I sit with the broken angels clutching at straws and nursing our scars."

#4 of 134 Dennis Nicholls

Dennis Nicholls

    Lead Actor

  • 7,740 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 1998
  • Real Name:Dennis
  • LocationBoise, ID

Posted October 10 2003 - 02:03 PM

Quote:
Interestingly, the promotion continues Sony's recent practice of referring to Super Audio Compact Discs as "SA-CD" rather than "SACD".


This is all my fault. I have several friends in the legal department at Sony, and the legal deparment is in charge of trademarks and branding (among other things). I always pronounce SACD "sack-dee" in front of them which annoys them to no end.
Feline videophiles Condoleezza and Dukie.


#5 of 134 John Kotches

John Kotches

    Screenwriter

  • 2,636 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 14 2000

Posted October 11 2003 - 01:29 AM

  • Rolling Stone reader sticks the disc into their player (non-SACD capable).
  • Rolling Stone reader gets no surround sound (hybrid) or no sound at all(non-hybrid)...
  • Rolling Stone reader doesn't go out to buy a player, since this disc doesn't play on their current player
  • Rolling Stone reader decides to toss it out like all of the AOL frisbees.
This will be the experience for at least 99% of the discs, likely more than 99.5%.


Regards,
Surround Music Enthusiast / Curmudgeon in Training
Opinions are my own, not representative of the publication I write for.

#6 of 134 Lee Scoggins

Lee Scoggins

    Producer

  • 6,396 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 30 2001
  • Real Name:Lee

Posted October 11 2003 - 02:49 AM

Quote:
This will be the experience for at least 99% of the discs, likely more than 99.5%.


I am completely sick and tired of such ridiculously negative views on Super Audio. Sony and Rolling Stone do something creative and all you people can do is bitch.

I think I will leave the Forum for a while. There is no value add here - just a tired, boring repeat of the same anti-SACD/anti-Sony mantra.

Posted Image
Viewing: Sony KDSXBR150, Sony Bluray S570, ATT Uverse
Listening: Sony SCD777ES, Benchmark DAC1Pre, VPI/Modwright SWP9SE/Lyra Argo, Audio Research Ref3/VT100, Maggie 1.7s

 


#7 of 134 Marty M

Marty M

    Screenwriter

  • 2,918 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 06 1998

Posted October 11 2003 - 04:28 AM

Another thing is the promotion of SACD by Circuit City. Our local CC has the lousiest selection of SACDs.
Lawn Ranger Motto: You're only young once, but you can be always be immature.

#8 of 134 Phil A

Phil A

    Screenwriter

  • 2,799 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 01 2000
  • Real Name:Phil
  • LocationCentral FL

Posted October 11 2003 - 07:01 AM

While some might throw away the Rolling Stone disc. The average reader of the magazine is probably more than curious about music and assuming they at least have the ability to take it to a store to listen to it, I think it will certainly help with general education of the public. They still need to work on Circuit City and Best Buy employess though in the education dept.

#9 of 134 Gordon McMurphy

Gordon McMurphy

    Producer

  • 3,530 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2002

Posted October 11 2003 - 08:35 AM

SACD is a great format if you love music. You don't have to buy compatible hardware but then you don't/didn't have to buy a DVD player back in the good old 90s and now DVD is as mainstream as it gets (my grandmother has one!) but if you want to stick with clipped remasters on CD, then by all means carry on regardless. However, it has to be said that Sony has marketed the format very poorly, but hey - ditzy half-asleep kooks like myself managed to hear the whispers on street, and now I'm basking in the aural glow of some great SACD remasters. If ya got the cash, then get gear! Posted Image Posted Image


Gordy


#10 of 134 Rob M.

Rob M.

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 127 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 13 2002

Posted October 11 2003 - 12:19 PM

Quote:
I am completely sick and tired of such ridiculously negative views on Super Audio. Sony and Rolling Stone do something creative and all you people can do is bitch.


I don't think anyone in this thread is anti-SACD. I am, however, anti-Rolling Stone, which I no longer even consider a music magazine.

I have an SACD player and about 20 discs, so I hope the format is successful. I'm also a Sony-lover. I think they are one of the most reliable electronics outfits out there.

But, I'm also a realist. Sony has done a piss-poor job marketing this format.
"So if you want my address it's number one at the end of the bar
Where I sit with the broken angels clutching at straws and nursing our scars."

#11 of 134 Dave Bennett

Dave Bennett

    Screenwriter

  • 1,167 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 11 2000

Posted October 11 2003 - 12:26 PM

I'll inject a few comments here. First, I agree I don't think this thread is being anti SACD in anyway nor anti Sony. People are simply pointing out that the marketing of SACD has been um.. shall we say "less than optimal", yeah that's a nice nondescriptive term Posted Image
I really think SACD is the better of the two formats. I'm much more likely to buy an album I don't already have on an SACD Hybrid so I can enjoy the multichannel mix at home and still be able to play the redbook layer in the car etc. The problem is that alot of the titles I'm thinking about getting are SACD only which makes me more likely to just buy the regular cd. I'd rather have to hear a lesser version at home and some version in the car than a great version at home and nothing in the car.
If more SACD releases are going to be released in hybrid form, I'll definitely end up buying ALOT of releases. Before I got my SACD/DVD-A player I was not buying much music (other than a few songs on the iTunes store here and there). If hybrid discs become more prevalent I'd definately buy more discs.
As for whether it will catch on with the average consumer, who knows. The average consumer probably listens to music through a $150 mini system so I doubt they'd really care about audio quality. If hybrid discs become more common, both j6p and we audiophiles will both win.
I'm convinced that cds caught on with the average consumer not because of the increased audio quality but more for the ability to skip tracks, random play, etc. SACD doesn't really offer anything new in that regard so I doubt the average consumer will rush out to buy the necessary equipment to play them.
Regards,
Dave

#12 of 134 John Kotches

John Kotches

    Screenwriter

  • 2,636 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 14 2000

Posted October 11 2003 - 03:03 PM

Lee,

Please provide counter arguments to these statements:
  • SACD has less than 1% market penetration in the US population as a whole
  • Of the readers that receive this disc in their issue of Rolling Stone, < 1% will be motivated to go so far as to research SACD playback
  • Of those that bother to investigate SACD, < 25% will actually go to the extent of purchasing SACD capable players
If these estimates are accurate, then we're talking about a US$20 million investment to garner 50,000 SACD player sales (give or take a few thousand). That would be an investment of $400/ for each player sold. This model did work fairly well for game consoles, such as Playstation and Playstation 2. Given the royalty and profit structures for SACD that would be a fair number of title sales to recoup those costs.

Given current market conditions for the music industry, is this really viable?
Surround Music Enthusiast / Curmudgeon in Training
Opinions are my own, not representative of the publication I write for.

#13 of 134 John Berggren

John Berggren

    Producer

  • 3,245 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 17 1999

Posted October 11 2003 - 05:49 PM

I'm interested in learning the track listing for this release.

Regardless, I'll probably pick it up for demo purposes. Perhaps I'll also gain new appreciation for a musician or group.
Support the fight against Multiple Sclerosis as I ride in the 2007 MS 150 in New Bern this September.

Be a Widescreen Advocate

#14 of 134 Thomas Newton

Thomas Newton

    Screenwriter

  • 1,434 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 16 1999

Posted October 11 2003 - 06:00 PM

Lee,

John's mention of a fact that you don't like (i.e., that most of the people buying the magazine will not have a way to play the SACD layer) is not being "ridiculously negative", "anti-Sony", and "anti-SACD". The same comments would apply if it were a DVD-Audio disc that was bundled with Rolling Stone.

Fact: CD and DVD-Video are the standard formats -- not DVD-Audio and SACD. You can't demonstrate the supposed advantages of a niche format on a player that does not recognize the niche format.

I'll grant that if it is a hybrid SACD, his predictions about people throwing away the discs are unlikely to come true.

#15 of 134 Thomas Newton

Thomas Newton

    Screenwriter

  • 1,434 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 16 1999

Posted October 11 2003 - 06:15 PM

Quote:
That would be an investment of $400/ for each player sold.

They're probably hoping that you'll repurchase your whole music library on full-price, copy-protected SACDs. That could add up fast. (The Dylan "forklift upgrade" box alone will set you back $200. Chances are that if you're in the market for it, you've already bought many of his albums on CD, and maybe also on LP.)

Even given that, I don't believe they're looking to spend $400 per person. My guess is that they're hoping that a bunch of people will see the SACD ads, and wander forth and buy SACD players and discs on the basis of the ads. The disc would then be more a way to make the ads stick in the mind, than a means of enabling A-B comparison testing on people's existing equipment.

#16 of 134 John Kotches

John Kotches

    Screenwriter

  • 2,636 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 14 2000

Posted October 12 2003 - 02:28 AM

Thomas,

The catch is that, historically, this type of magazine inclusion has been woefully poor on returns. Typical returns on something like this are around .25%. So, .25% of 1.3 million copies amounts to a "spike" of 25,000 sales. Not great by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't see the motivation for checking out SACD... since the disc is hybrid, it will playback in their CD player. The vast majority aren't interested in playback equipment plain and simple.

If it plays in their CD player, that will be good enough.

Obviously, it's all speculation but we will certainly know in the next few months, won't we?

Regards,
Surround Music Enthusiast / Curmudgeon in Training
Opinions are my own, not representative of the publication I write for.

#17 of 134 Gordon McMurphy

Gordon McMurphy

    Producer

  • 3,530 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2002

Posted October 12 2003 - 05:41 AM

What about DVD-Audio? It's basically in the same boat: if the consumer's DVD player plays back the standard resoultion 5.1 track then they'll probably wonder what the fuss is about. But play them back the 192khz 24-bit 5.1 track and then they'll understand the fuss.

But all this is in the hands of the marketing people. Posting comments on the Internet is small potatoes. They need to help their customers understand the benefits of SACD and DVD-Audio.


Gordy


#18 of 134 charles white

charles white

    Second Unit

  • 292 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 09 2002

Posted October 12 2003 - 06:36 AM

what tracks are going to be on this SACD?

#19 of 134 John Kotches

John Kotches

    Screenwriter

  • 2,636 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 14 2000

Posted October 12 2003 - 07:26 AM

Gordon,

The difference in presentation (5.1) is IMO a bigger difference to the average consumer than improved fidelity. With a DVD-Audio disc the 5.1 experience is available. With SACD it isn't.

Also, 192kHz sampling frequency is only available stereo tracks, 96kHz sampling is the maximum for > 2 channels.

Regards,
Surround Music Enthusiast / Curmudgeon in Training
Opinions are my own, not representative of the publication I write for.

#20 of 134 Gordon McMurphy

Gordon McMurphy

    Producer

  • 3,530 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2002

Posted October 12 2003 - 08:12 AM

You're right, John; 192khz is only for mono or stereo with 96khz for 5.1. My mistake. The more I think about, DVD-A and SACD seem more for audiophiles - although I do not consider myself one, although I appreciate the quality immensely. Too many years of badly mastered/remastered clipped-to-death CDs of great albums.

Hearing music in 5.1 probably does mean more to the average Joe, but in a few years, 5.1 won't mean anything - it will have become the norm. I'm not to enamoured by it, to be honest; when it comes to DVDs of movies, I prefer the original mono to most 5.1 remixes and I must say that I apply that to music albums too. I think that 5.1 works best when it is used to ambiance and space in soundscapes. But that's my individual taste.


Gordy



Back to Music & Soundtracks



Forum Nav Content I Follow