Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Music' started by JediFonger, Jun 13, 2006.
what's your assessment? i haven't see many compelling titles that i wanna' buy.
I'd recommend 'Stupid Dream' by Porcupine Tree on Dvd-A.Its classed as 'Progressive Rock' but its not as heavy as their laterr material and contains some really good tunes.
As for the thread title , though it depresses me to type it, at the moment I would have to say that we have the world's 2 most popular pastimes (Music/Movies) being run by the 2 most stupid industries ever ! Well able to moan about a 'perceived' loss income from recording or portable media they are unable ( unwilling) to show anything other than disdain for their genuine customers.
Its a well-worn quote , but "In the battle between Dvd-A and Sacd , the iPod won ". Now, how did they let that happen ?
I think both formats are doomed to small niche market status only or worse. It is not the fault of the record companies in my opinion, the products are of no interest to the mass market consumer. A lot of great titles were released and didn't sell well at all. It appears clear that the average person prefers the convenience and price of MP3 and CD when given the choice. I believe no amount of marketing or hype can overcome that. To this day, I have not convinced a single person to buy even one SACD/DVD-A player and to the few that own a capable player to buy even one SACD/DVD-A disc. I haven't impressed a soul with either format and I own over 160 high resolution discs now. I am not aware of many more I am interested in acquiring and I expect very few new releases of interest going forward. I have a few classical discs, but I don't want any more classical music and that is about all I see being released.
Of course this topic has been brought up many times previously and the formats still have a tiny trickle of releases so both may continue for years.
well, that sux =(. i had high hopes when i frst heard about these 2 high-res audio format. the "holy grail" of audio was finally being realized and no one cared. people seem to think CD's are already there and the portability of MP3's just makes it more appealing than high-res.
Yes, I agree that both markets are small and niche. SACD seems to continue releasing stuff that appeal to classical or jazz enthusiasts but does not seem to have many mainstream popular releases of wider appeal. We may yet see hi-rez on HD DVD or Blu-Ray but I suspect at this point the major labels have figured out that the audiophile market is very small and the mass market cares more about convenience.
Do we really need another thread to teeth gnash, opine and regurgitate that which has been discussed so many times before?
Back to listening to my Telarc Mozart "Requiem" SACD and budgeting when I can afford to buy the over 50 SACDs and DVD-As on my Amazon Wish List,
The situation with DVD-A looks more dire. At the very least, Universal has decided to release 2 of the 5 Moody Blues SACD here in the US. And Telarc, Chesky, and the SonyBMG Living Stereo series are continuing to release new titles. For DVD-A, the only activity seems to be coming from AIX.
Our local Best Buy has relegated DVD-A and SACD to just a few rows of space. I assume that this space will be cleared out very soon.
Same with my local Best Buy, but it keep restocking its inventory with new Telarc releases and those NOS Sony single-layer titles (the ones without any slipcases). There are also SACDs "hiding" in the regular CD section too.
The two Best Buy stores I visit have a number of DVD-A and SACD titles mixed in with regular CD's, probably more than they have in the SACD/DVD-A section. The selection isn't good in any event.
I did sort through the FYE store in Springfield, Missouri looking for used SACD/DVD-A that were mixed in with used CD's. The 3 for $20 group included some, but I spent about 2 hours looking and won't bother again. I did walk out with two and had to make the third be a double disc CD. Overall it was a good deal but not worth the time.
The marketing has been just plain retarded, about as bad as laserdisc if not worse. If they hired me I'd make sure it didn't die, at least not without a fighting chance.
That's probably being too kind about the marketing.
The Best Buy where I go to school still has a small dedicated DVDA/SACD section, the 3 or 4 stores I've been to in Miami have all decided to 'mix in' their hi-res releases with their entire stock, there's barely anything there, and unless you are looking for a specific title, impossible to find.
I think we've established by now that both formats aren't faring too well, but the fact that companies like Telarc are still putting out new releases shows that there is still an interest, albeit a small one. I've mentioned this before and I'll mention it again, young people have a very large share of expendable income, yet I feel like I was never marketed towards. None of my friends have ever heard of DVD-A or SACD. And besides that, until these formats start becoming standard in new cars, people are going to be skeptical to upgrade. Most people listen to music on their computers at home. Most people listen to their iPod while outside. In the car, radio and CD still rule. That's not to say that people will really notice the difference of a hi-res release in their car, but most people won't upgrade their CD's if they can only play them at home. The majority of the hi-res I've been buying is classical because I don't care about listening to classical in the car, but I love it for at home.
matt, i'm gonna say i'm probably around your age (that or i'm really getting 2old =^). and this whole ordeal about high-res (just like HD movie discs) really comes down to hard-hitting titles. i mean people love Dr Dre, 2Pac, Britney Spears (ok, maybe not that) but you get my point. i mean if Coldplay's XY or the latest Foo Fighters came out ONLY via SACD hybrid multichannel, just think of the exposure! but they're really taken a low-road with hi-res in general and multichannel. stereo is STILL KING after many years of its supposed demise, Cable TV, DVD's, SACD's, DVD-Audio, HD-DVD, BluRay, PC games, XBox Games, PS3 and so on all still heavily on stereo and sometimes just plain out mono =).
2 channel stereo will always be king....just look at all those people on their iPods. It doesn't matter whether the production was in mono, 2 channel stereo, 3 channel stereo, quad, 5.1 or more, the idea is to get the production in as hi-res as possible. Unfortunately, most people consider MP3 good enough and anything that is labeled as either "digital" or CD quality" is considered the pinnacle of sound reproduction.
The now generation is more about quanity then quality. Hi-Res is for a special select of hifiers,us. If they would have done one format,really pushed it and came out with a crap load of titles,well maybe it might have took off. For now lets just hope it stays around.
But when has hi-res ever been anything other than a niche product? When music recordings first became available, people were happy to have access to it at all. Then refinements came along, though they were not instantly adopted (mono purists back in the day were just as reluctant to embrace stereo as 2 channel purists are about MCH--and stereo was always intended to be THREE channels, not two, but playback media was not up to the task of more than two channels [stereo means 3D, not 2 channels]).
Of course, in the glory days of vinyl, the hi-res medium existed (vinyl) and SQ depended on gear. But, soon enough, cost-cutting measures led to crappy vinyl pressings and the arrival of 8-track and cassettes made music portable (reel to reel--the only truly hi-res alternative to vinyl in analogue days was too bulky for portability). When crappy vinyl was the norm, only the niche audiophile market continued with quality pressings and, guess what? Those were largely jazz and classical. Seem familiar?
Today we have the "good enough for the masses" (CD, iPod, mp3) and we have niche audiophile hi-res largely devoted to classical and jazz. Plus ça change...
I would be ecstatic if SACD hybrids were the norm (with as many MCH releases as possible--and if anyone questions the need for MCH, just give a listen to the solo harp DVD-A put out by AIX or the Pletnev piano solos of Schumann compositions in MCH and then 2 channel), but for many reasons, they're not. But I don't regret for one minute having invested in hi-res gear and media (I still have 200 discs on SA-CD.net in my wish list and about 60 DVD-As at various online retailers wish-lists). And while the selection is heavy on the classical and jazz, I've been a jazz fan for a long time and, thanks to hi-res, I've become a major classical fan as well (I still don't know much about classical as a genre, but I enjoy listening to it). Hi-res pushed me to explore musical tastes in classical that I'd largely ignored and I'm very happy to ignore it no longer. I've even taken to subscribing to the Montreal Symphony Orchestra each season.
Ultimately, audiophiles will keep hi-res alive and while it would be nice for it to be mainstream, it doesn't matter to me. YMMV
technically speaking, if regular CD's is "high-res", then it's mass-market.
ultimately, it's all about convenience, and not hi-fidelity.
Personally speaking, I DO put much of the blame on the record companies as far as the mass market is concerned:
1) their "marketing" was awful.
Even Warner Bros, the main backer of dvd-audio as far as the Big Labels are concerned, barely tried. Perfect example: when that REM "Best Of" album came out on CD-only and dvd-audio form at the same time, I watched a commercial for it......except that all they talked about was the CD version. I did not see one mention of the dvd-audio version, not even a one line sentence in small print somewhere. Stupid!
Sony's RS500 freebie sampler was definitely a good idea (I have a copy myself), but what did they fill that disc with? A bunch of moldy-oldie classic rock (FYI: I'm 41) and a few tunes that the critics liked. And in the ad itself, I don't remember them talking much at all about the surround aspect. That leads me to my second point:
2) After selling audio gear for several years and having "stealth" conversations with many Average Joes, hi-res stereo music is a non-entity & they could care less. But surround music is a whole different matter. Not that they all like it, but its difference over ANY kind of stereo playback system are completely audible.
An ironic fact is that the only label that really pushes the surround aspect, at least on their labeling is Silverline.....and we all know about their 5.1 mix history.
I also put some blame on the ailing computer industry: in their attempts to save themselves (after most people realized they don't need a 3.0gHz Pentium and 200gb drive to read their email) many of them started marketing computers as "media centers", making it seem that anything accomplished via a PC is the best way to do that thing, including music. Because why else would someone think a laptop's 2" speakers sound good!? Even if you're not an audiophile, IMO the majority of people have heard a half-way decent audio system somewhere and that includes (gulp) even a Bose system, so I think they would have a general idea of what decent sound is like.