[Jack]

I don't own a SACD player now but buy the disks of
new releases (Goldfrapp - Supernature; Depeche
Mode - Playing the Angel) as my next player will
be SACD compatible. I don't care about DVD-A,
since even fewer of them are available.

I am willing to spend say 10% more for them than
for normal CD's, but not much more.

a) Do you think SACD is doomed?

b) Have you listened to a new recording mastered
for SACD from step 1 instead of an old recording
converted for SACD? What was the sound like?

c) What are your thoughts on SACD in general.

[Stephan Gipp]

Hi Jack,

Jack wrote:
a) Do you think SACD is doomed?

I guess, because unless the industrie can sell LOTS of players and
discs, they will just drop it.

The good news is that companies like mobile fidelity release new stuff.


b) Have you listened to a new recording mastered for SACD from step 1
instead of an old recording converted for SACD? What was the sound like?

I have a copy of Beethove #4 & #5, played by the Minnesota Orchestra and
released by BIS as a hybrid. I can't say I care a lot about the multi
channel part, but the 2CH as well as the CD are excelent.


c) What are your thoughts on SACD in general.

One of these technologies were nobody asked 'should we do it'. As far as
I am concerned, a well done CD is more than sufficient (just that a lot
of them are not done with quality in mind).

Stephan

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 17 Nov 2006 02:33:26 GMT, Stephan Gipp
wrote:

Jack wrote:
a) Do you think SACD is doomed?

I guess, because unless the industrie can sell LOTS of players and
discs, they will just drop it.

The good news is that companies like mobile fidelity release new stuff.

;-) MF generally release old stuff. The good news is that there are
dozens of small companies issuing new, mostly classical, SACDs.

b) Have you listened to a new recording mastered for SACD from step 1
instead of an old recording converted for SACD? What was the sound like?

I have a copy of Beethove #4 & #5, played by the Minnesota Orchestra and
released by BIS as a hybrid. I can't say I care a lot about the multi
channel part, but the 2CH as well as the CD are excelent.

That's one of them. Add to that the other orchestra-owned labels:
RPO, SFSO, LSO, RCO, etc.

Kal

[Steven Sullivan]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 17 Nov 2006 02:33:26 GMT, Stephan Gipp
wrote:

Jack wrote:
a) Do you think SACD is doomed?

I guess, because unless the industrie can sell LOTS of players and
discs, they will just drop it.

The good news is that companies like mobile fidelity release new stuff.

;-) MF generally release old stuff. The good news is that there are
dozens of small companies issuing new, mostly classical, SACDs.

well, that's good news if you like recorded classical music...
which isn't exactly the healthiest market sector either.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 17 Nov 2006 23:24:37 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
;-) MF generally release old stuff. The good news is that there are
dozens of small companies issuing new, mostly classical, SACDs.

well, that's good news if you like recorded classical music...
which isn't exactly the healthiest market sector either.

Let's not confuse a small market with an unhealthy one. That's the
error of the companies that cannot make a buck unless they sell an
half million or more. Small classical companies can make a profit
with sales 1/10 of that and, for them, SACD is a viable option.

Kal

[Steven Sullivan]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 17 Nov 2006 23:24:37 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
;-) MF generally release old stuff. The good news is that there are
dozens of small companies issuing new, mostly classical, SACDs.

well, that's good news if you like recorded classical music...
which isn't exactly the healthiest market sector either.

Let's not confuse a small market with an unhealthy one. That's the
error of the companies that cannot make a buck unless they sell an
half million or more. Small classical companies can make a profit
with sales 1/10 of that and, for them, SACD is a viable option.

Let us call it a 'market reaching a new equilibrium', then.
Or maybe 'downsizing'. I think those are acceptable business
euphemisms for when a once-significant business contracts to
niche status.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[---MIKE---]

So far I have not been impressed with SACDs. I have about a dozen on
various labels. I find that the surround sound does not contribute much
to the effect. The synthesised rear channels from my cheap Sony
receiver provide a better acoustic picture than the rear channels on the
SACD recordings. Maybe I just don't have the "right" SACDs (LSO, BIS,
Sony, RCA, and Channel Classics).

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 18 Nov 2006 19:31:39 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Let us call it a 'market reaching a new equilibrium', then.
Or maybe 'downsizing'. I think those are acceptable business
euphemisms for when a once-significant business contracts to
niche status.

It can be put in those terms but it, nonetheless, remains a profitable
business model and, for those of us, who listen to such music by
choice, it is an active one. I doubt there is a similar level of
success in the non-niche market. Just look at the problems in the
mainstream record business.

At the moment, I cannot keep up with the new releases in this
"once-significant" "niche," many of which are interesting and
exciting.

Kal

[Steven Sullivan]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 18 Nov 2006 19:31:39 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Let us call it a 'market reaching a new equilibrium', then.
Or maybe 'downsizing'. I think those are acceptable business
euphemisms for when a once-significant business contracts to
niche status.

It can be put in those terms but it, nonetheless, remains a profitable
business model and, for those of us, who listen to such music by
choice, it is an active one. I doubt there is a similar level of
success in the non-niche market. Just look at the problems in the
mainstream record business.

At the moment, I cannot keep up with the new releases in this
"once-significant" "niche," many of which are interesting and
exciting.

Whereas I haven't bought a new SACD release in many months. My most recent
surround purchases were Bjork CD remixes, which were Dolby DIgital.

--

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Harry Lavo]

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
So far I have not been impressed with SACDs. I have about a dozen on
various labels. I find that the surround sound does not contribute much
to the effect. The synthesised rear channels from my cheap Sony
receiver provide a better acoustic picture than the rear channels on the
SACD recordings. Maybe I just don't have the "right" SACDs (LSO, BIS,
Sony, RCA, and Channel Classics).

The RCA's *have* no rear channel...they are 2 and 3 channel only.

Classical music in general should only have "hall ambiance" in the rear
channels....how much of this or how little is to some degree a matter of how
well balanced you've set up your system. I can assure you all the remaining
recordings have "ambience". If you have a lower end SACD player that
converts SACD to PCM, or are using internal SACD PCM to adjust for less than
full range speakers, you may not hear it, however. Such conversion usuall
significantly reduces the amount of ambience captured. Sony SACD players in
the ES line and some older players (the 775 in particular) use "pure DSD" in
Direct Mode, and this is where you will best hear the ambience.

To say "only have hall ambience" however is not to decrease it's
significance. On these recordings, the hall ambience serves to "float" the
sound, creating more of a sense of space and separation between instruments
and sections, and of the orchestra in the hall. It creates a sense of
realisim that is much more difficult (often impossbile depending on
listening room) to create with ordinary stereo reproduction.

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 17 Nov 2006 23:24:37 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
;-) MF generally release old stuff. The good news is that there are
dozens of small companies issuing new, mostly classical, SACDs.

well, that's good news if you like recorded classical music...
which isn't exactly the healthiest market sector either.

Let's not confuse a small market with an unhealthy one. That's the
error of the companies that cannot make a buck unless they sell an
half million or more. Small classical companies can make a profit
with sales 1/10 of that and, for them, SACD is a viable option.

Let us call it a 'market reaching a new equilibrium', then.
Or maybe 'downsizing'. I think those are acceptable business
euphemisms for when a once-significant business contracts to
niche status.


You continue to say things like this despite the fact that more SACD's are
being issue today per unit of time than ever before.

You may think that Sony dropping out has ruined SACD, but classical music
lovers are better served than ever before. As has been pointed out here
already, SACD sales as a percent of the recorded music market are growing.
And a 1.2% share in a market where classical music in total equals only 3%
is not insignificant.

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 18 Nov 2006 19:31:39 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Let us call it a 'market reaching a new equilibrium', then.
Or maybe 'downsizing'. I think those are acceptable business
euphemisms for when a once-significant business contracts to
niche status.

It can be put in those terms but it, nonetheless, remains a profitable
business model and, for those of us, who listen to such music by
choice, it is an active one. I doubt there is a similar level of
success in the non-niche market. Just look at the problems in the
mainstream record business.

At the moment, I cannot keep up with the new releases in this
"once-significant" "niche," many of which are interesting and
exciting.

Whereas I haven't bought a new SACD release in many months. My most recent
surround purchases were Bjork CD remixes, which were Dolby DIgital.

If your interests are only pop, SACD is not for you....nor is DVD-A any
longer, for that matter. But you do (or did) have Dual Disks.

[bob]

Harry Lavo wrote:

You may think that Sony dropping out has ruined SACD, but classical music
lovers are better served than ever before. As has been pointed out here
already, SACD sales as a percent of the recorded music market are growing.
And a 1.2% share in a market where classical music in total equals only 3%
is not insignificant.

Classical recordings may represent a disproportionate share of SACD
releases, but they still represent only a small proportion of SACD
sales. Comparing SACD to classical sales as if all or most SACDs sold
were classical is meaningless, as well as misleading.

bob

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

You may think that Sony dropping out has ruined SACD, but classical music
lovers are better served than ever before. As has been pointed out here
already, SACD sales as a percent of the recorded music market are
growing.
And a 1.2% share in a market where classical music in total equals only
3%
is not insignificant.

Classical recordings may represent a disproportionate share of SACD
releases, but they still represent only a small proportion of SACD
sales. Comparing SACD to classical sales as if all or most SACDs sold
were classical is meaningless, as well as misleading.


What is the source of your information?

[---MIKE---]

Harry Lavo wrote:

If you have a lower end SACD player
that converts SACD to PCM, or are
using internal SACD PCM to adjust for
less than full range speakers, you may
not hear it, however. Such conversion
usuall significantly reduces the amount
of ambience captured.

This is the expected response from someone who promotes expensive gear.
My SACD player is indeed "low end" but when I play movies on DVDs, the
ambience from the rear channels is very impressive. I don't mean only
the special effects but the music has ambience also - much more so than
the SACDs that I have. I would welcome suggestions of an SACD that
would have a similar effect.

---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')

[Harry Lavo]

"---MIKE---" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

If you have a lower end SACD player
that converts SACD to PCM, or are
using internal SACD PCM to adjust for
less than full range speakers, you may
not hear it, however. Such conversion
usuall significantly reduces the amount
of ambience captured.

This is the expected response from someone who promotes expensive gear.
My SACD player is indeed "low end" but when I play movies on DVDs, the
ambience from the rear channels is very impressive. I don't mean only
the special effects but the music has ambience also - much more so than
the SACDs that I have. I would welcome suggestions of an SACD that
would have a similar effect.


I am *not* promoting expensive gear, although the odds are better at finding
it there. I specifically have been recommending a Sony C2000ES changer
which can be bought on eBay for about $270. For an ES level Sony, with SACD
and a five disk changer, that is hardly "expensive gear" in today's market.
In fact, I consider it an outstanding "best buy" in that market.

As for the ambience....movies are not designed to sound "natural" ... their
sound is generally "hyped" to achieve an affect.

The classical music ambience is the faint but nonetheless important "sound
of the hall" that lets our room boundries disappear in surroung mode.

[[email protected]]

---MIKE--- wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:

If you have a lower end SACD player
that converts SACD to PCM, or are
using internal SACD PCM to adjust for
less than full range speakers, you may
not hear it, however. Such conversion
usuall significantly reduces the amount
of ambience captured.

This is the expected response from someone who promotes expensive gear.
My SACD player is indeed "low end" but when I play movies on DVDs, the
ambience from the rear channels is very impressive. I don't mean only
the special effects but the music has ambience also - much more so than
the SACDs that I have. I would welcome suggestions of an SACD that
would have a similar effect.


I have no doubt that movie soundtracks have more "ambience" than
classical music SACDs. I doubt that it is in any way truer to life
though. Movie soundtracks are not designed for fidelity to live music.
It is easy to create excessive artificial ambient sound.

Scott

[Here in Ohio]

On 21 Nov 2006 15:41:43 GMT, (---MIKE---)
wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:

If you have a lower end SACD player
that converts SACD to PCM, or are
using internal SACD PCM to adjust for
less than full range speakers, you may
not hear it, however. Such conversion
usuall significantly reduces the amount
of ambience captured.

This is the expected response from someone who promotes expensive gear.
My SACD player is indeed "low end" but when I play movies on DVDs, the
ambience from the rear channels is very impressive. I don't mean only
the special effects but the music has ambience also - much more so than
the SACDs that I have. I would welcome suggestions of an SACD that
would have a similar effect.


It seems to me that the "ambience" you refer to is a result of the
surround sound processing applied to movies, which is normally rather
different from any processing that would be applied to music on an
SACD.

I don't think that the "quality" of the SACD player is an issue here.
You may just prefer the type of processing done to movie soundtracks.

[bob]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

Classical recordings may represent a disproportionate share of SACD
releases, but they still represent only a small proportion of SACD
sales. Comparing SACD to classical sales as if all or most SACDs sold
were classical is meaningless, as well as misleading.

What is the source of your information?

Acoustic Sounds' top sellers list:

http://store.acousticsounds.com/tops...fm?Field_cat=4

Fewer than 10 of the top 50 sellers were classical (and in music, as in
all media, top sellers tend to dominate overall sales).

bob

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 2 Dec 2006 02:06:07 GMT, "bob" wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

Classical recordings may represent a disproportionate share of SACD
releases, but they still represent only a small proportion of SACD
sales. Comparing SACD to classical sales as if all or most SACDs sold
were classical is meaningless, as well as misleading.

What is the source of your information?

Acoustic Sounds' top sellers list:

http://store.acousticsounds.com/tops...fm?Field_cat=4

Fewer than 10 of the top 50 sellers were classical (and in music, as in
all media, top sellers tend to dominate overall sales).

Those numbers seem to be only for Acoustic Sounds sales. Of course,
non-classical sales always dominate but classical SACD sales must be
profitable or else there would not be such a disproportionately large
number of such releases.

Kal

[bob]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 2 Dec 2006 02:06:07 GMT, "bob" wrote:

Acoustic Sounds' top sellers list:

http://store.acousticsounds.com/tops...fm?Field_cat=4

Fewer than 10 of the top 50 sellers were classical (and in music, as in
all media, top sellers tend to dominate overall sales).

Those numbers seem to be only for Acoustic Sounds sales.

True, but I can't think of any reason why their sales pattern would be
anomalous.

Of course,
non-classical sales always dominate but classical SACD sales must be
profitable or else there would not be such a disproportionately large
number of such releases.

True. I was merely warning against an equation of the classical and
SACD market shares. Classical accounts for only a smallish fraction of
SACD sales, and SACD only accounts for a small fraction of classical
sales.

Just as an added point of comparison, classical music appears to be
about as well represented on Acoustic Sounds' best-selling CD list as
the SACD list. That's not surprising, given the audiophile market. This
would seem to belie the notion that the SACD format serves as a boon to
classical music lovers, who would be starved of content otherwise.

bob

[Harry Lavo]

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On 2 Dec 2006 02:06:07 GMT, "bob" wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

Classical recordings may represent a disproportionate share of SACD
releases, but they still represent only a small proportion of SACD
sales. Comparing SACD to classical sales as if all or most SACDs sold
were classical is meaningless, as well as misleading.

What is the source of your information?

Acoustic Sounds' top sellers list:

http://store.acousticsounds.com/tops...fm?Field_cat=4

Fewer than 10 of the top 50 sellers were classical (and in music, as in
all media, top sellers tend to dominate overall sales).

Those numbers seem to be only for Acoustic Sounds sales. Of course,
non-classical sales always dominate but classical SACD sales must be
profitable or else there would not be such a disproportionately large
number of such releases.

Kal

Acoustic Sounds is an audiophile-specific outlet, as opposed to CD Universe
and many other specialty retailers. So they alone do not represent the SACD
world...in fact that world may be more dominated by serious classical music
lovers than by audiophiles per se.

Moreover, while their are a few classic "reissue" pop and jazz titles,
tilled from the soil of many years of LP and CD releases that were best
sellers in their day, their are far fewer of those in the classical arena
(once you get past the Living Stereo and Living Presence releases)...instead
you have a broad sampling of classical releases...none of which will be
"best sellers" but most of which are of interest to some segment of the
classical market. If you've ever followed the on-line forum discussions
among music lovers you will find there is little consensus on "top picks"
even on such staples as Beethoven and Shastocovich Symphonies.

So basing you analysis on a "best seller" list is logically suspect in its
underlying assumption to begin with.

[bob]

Harry Lavo wrote:

Acoustic Sounds is an audiophile-specific outlet, as opposed to CD Universe
and many other specialty retailers. So they alone do not represent the SACD
world...in fact that world may be more dominated by serious classical music
lovers than by audiophiles per se.

Assuming this is true (and we can only assume it, though it seems
logical), that means the Acoustic Sounds bestseller list overstates
classical's share of the SACD market. Which seems to bolster my point,
not yours.

Moreover, while their are a few classic "reissue" pop and jazz titles,
tilled from the soil of many years of LP and CD releases that were best
sellers in their day, their are far fewer of those in the classical arena
(once you get past the Living Stereo and Living Presence releases)...instead
you have a broad sampling of classical releases...none of which will be
"best sellers" but most of which are of interest to some segment of the
classical market. If you've ever followed the on-line forum discussions
among music lovers you will find there is little consensus on "top picks"
even on such staples as Beethoven and Shastocovich Symphonies.

And if this is true, it tugs in the opposite direction. I suspect it's
true, but limited. Certainly in the broader market, classical is better
represented in the "long tail" than on the best seller list (where it
is vitually nonexistent). But the most basic fact about the long tail
is that there are relatively few units sold down there. So the pop
releases are still going to dominate.

So basing you analysis on a "best seller" list is logically suspect in its
underlying assumption to begin with.

Hardly. It's an indication, and probably the only quantifiable
indication we have. There are, as you note, reasons to think it
overstates classical's share, and reasons to think it understates it.
Absent better data, it's not unreasonable to think that it's somewhere
in the ballpark.

bob

[[email protected]]

bob wrote:
Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 2 Dec 2006 02:06:07 GMT, "bob" wrote:

Acoustic Sounds' top sellers list:

http://store.acousticsounds.com/tops...fm?Field_cat=4

Fewer than 10 of the top 50 sellers were classical (and in music, as in
all media, top sellers tend to dominate overall sales).

Those numbers seem to be only for Acoustic Sounds sales.

True, but I can't think of any reason why their sales pattern would be
anomalous.

Nor can I. I'd bet it isn't.


Of course,
non-classical sales always dominate but classical SACD sales must be
profitable or else there would not be such a disproportionately large
number of such releases.

True. I was merely warning against an equation of the classical and
SACD market shares. Classical accounts for only a smallish fraction of
SACD sales, and SACD only accounts for a small fraction of classical
sales.

I think you are most likely dead on here.


Just as an added point of comparison, classical music appears to be
about as well represented on Acoustic Sounds' best-selling CD list as
the SACD list. That's not surprising, given the audiophile market. This
would seem to belie the notion that the SACD format serves as a boon to
classical music lovers, who would be starved of content otherwise.

That I am not so sure of. I think it would only be fair to compare the
broad based music market ratios to the audiophile ratios. I have a
hunch in the general sales the proportions between classical and
everything else are nowhere near as high as they are for SACD sales. I
am quite confident that of the top 50 Billboard top sellers youwill not
find as many as 10 classical titles. I suspect you won't find any
classical in the top 200..

Scott

[[email protected]]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On 2 Dec 2006 02:06:07 GMT, "bob" wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

Classical recordings may represent a disproportionate share of SACD
releases, but they still represent only a small proportion of SACD
sales. Comparing SACD to classical sales as if all or most SACDs sold
were classical is meaningless, as well as misleading.

What is the source of your information?

Acoustic Sounds' top sellers list:

http://store.acousticsounds.com/tops...fm?Field_cat=4

Fewer than 10 of the top 50 sellers were classical (and in music, as in
all media, top sellers tend to dominate overall sales).

Those numbers seem to be only for Acoustic Sounds sales. Of course,
non-classical sales always dominate but classical SACD sales must be
profitable or else there would not be such a disproportionately large
number of such releases.

Kal

Acoustic Sounds is an audiophile-specific outlet, as opposed to CD Universe
and many other specialty retailers. So they alone do not represent the SACD
world...in fact that world may be more dominated by serious classical music
lovers than by audiophiles per se.

Moreover, while their are a few classic "reissue" pop and jazz titles,
tilled from the soil of many years of LP and CD releases that were best
sellers in their day, their are far fewer of those in the classical arena
(once you get past the Living Stereo and Living Presence releases)...instead
you have a broad sampling of classical releases...none of which will be
"best sellers" but most of which are of interest to some segment of the
classical market. If you've ever followed the on-line forum discussions
among music lovers you will find there is little consensus on "top picks"
even on such staples as Beethoven and Shastocovich Symphonies.

So basing you analysis on a "best seller" list is logically suspect in its
underlying assumption to begin with.

Actually I think this represents a shift in the audiophile community
towards a broader base of musical tastes with pop music emerging as the
most POPular genre with Jazz and Blues hot on it's tail. When I first
got into high end audio the music was very much dominated by classical.

Scott

[bob]

wrote:
bob wrote:

Just as an added point of comparison, classical music appears to be
about as well represented on Acoustic Sounds' best-selling CD list as
the SACD list. That's not surprising, given the audiophile market. This
would seem to belie the notion that the SACD format serves as a boon to
classical music lovers, who would be starved of content otherwise.

That I am not so sure of. I think it would only be fair to compare the
broad based music market ratios to the audiophile ratios. I have a
hunch in the general sales the proportions between classical and
everything else are nowhere near as high as they are for SACD sales. I
am quite confident that of the top 50 Billboard top sellers youwill not
find as many as 10 classical titles. I suspect you won't find any
classical in the top 200..

Barring the occasional "three tenors" phenomenon (remember "Chant"?),
this is certainly true. But I didn't mean to challenge the notion that
classical is a bigger share of SACD than CD. I meant to challenge the
notion that SACD represents a boon to classical listeners because so
many new releases (and re-releases) are coming out in the format. The
relative health of the classical audiophile CD market suggests to me
that classical music lovers would still be well served if SACD did not
exist.

Now, it may be that the existence of a new format is prompting some
remastering that wouldn't otherwise be occurring. And it may be that
some consumers would be more willing to buy an old recording in a new
format than to buy an old recording that's just a remastered CD. So
maybe the existence of SACD is having some behavioral effects at the
margins. But the same companies that think they can make a profit on
classical SACDs also seem to think they can make a profit on classical
audiophile CDs. I doubt that calculation would change if we didn't have
SACD around.

bob

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 2 Dec 2006 18:00:07 GMT, "bob" wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On 2 Dec 2006 02:06:07 GMT, "bob" wrote:

Acoustic Sounds' top sellers list:

http://store.acousticsounds.com/tops...fm?Field_cat=4

Fewer than 10 of the top 50 sellers were classical (and in music, as in
all media, top sellers tend to dominate overall sales).

Those numbers seem to be only for Acoustic Sounds sales.

True, but I can't think of any reason why their sales pattern would be
anomalous.

Because they cater to audiophiles which is a unique market distinct
from the mass market and any of its niches.

non-classical sales always dominate but classical SACD sales must be
profitable or else there would not be such a disproportionately large
number of such releases.

True. I was merely warning against an equation of the classical and
SACD market shares. Classical accounts for only a smallish fraction of
SACD sales, and SACD only accounts for a small fraction of classical
sales.

Just as an added point of comparison, classical music appears to be
about as well represented on Acoustic Sounds' best-selling CD list as
the SACD list. That's not surprising, given the audiophile market. This
would seem to belie the notion that the SACD format serves as a boon to
classical music lovers, who would be starved of content otherwise.

No one made such a suggestion but I do not disagree. What I saying is
that the incremental increase in classical sales resulting from SACD
is a boon to the producers and the evidence for that is the continued
release of classical SACDs. This suggests that the format may survive
in this niche market and, perhaps, others.

Kal

[[email protected]]

bob wrote:
wrote:
bob wrote:

Just as an added point of comparison, classical music appears to be
about as well represented on Acoustic Sounds' best-selling CD list as
the SACD list. That's not surprising, given the audiophile market. This
would seem to belie the notion that the SACD format serves as a boon to
classical music lovers, who would be starved of content otherwise.

That I am not so sure of. I think it would only be fair to compare the
broad based music market ratios to the audiophile ratios. I have a
hunch in the general sales the proportions between classical and
everything else are nowhere near as high as they are for SACD sales. I
am quite confident that of the top 50 Billboard top sellers youwill not
find as many as 10 classical titles. I suspect you won't find any
classical in the top 200..

Barring the occasional "three tenors" phenomenon (remember "Chant"?),
this is certainly true. But I didn't mean to challenge the notion that
classical is a bigger share of SACD than CD. I meant to challenge the
notion that SACD represents a boon to classical listeners because so
many new releases (and re-releases) are coming out in the format. The
relative health of the classical audiophile CD market suggests to me
that classical music lovers would still be well served if SACD did not
exist.

I think that's a fair position. If anything Classical music is a boon
to SACD. But really audiophilia is THE boon to SACD.


Now, it may be that the existence of a new format is prompting some
remastering that wouldn't otherwise be occurring. And it may be that
some consumers would be more willing to buy an old recording in a new
format than to buy an old recording that's just a remastered CD. So
maybe the existence of SACD is having some behavioral effects at the
margins. But the same companies that think they can make a profit on
classical SACDs also seem to think they can make a profit on classical
audiophile CDs. I doubt that calculation would change if we didn't have
SACD around.

That may be. But I think it may be worth while to get into SACD because
of the remasters available. I haven't done so myself so far but I think
I will have to.

Scott

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
wrote:
bob wrote:

Just as an added point of comparison, classical music appears to be
about as well represented on Acoustic Sounds' best-selling CD list as
the SACD list. That's not surprising, given the audiophile market. This
would seem to belie the notion that the SACD format serves as a boon to
classical music lovers, who would be starved of content otherwise.

That I am not so sure of. I think it would only be fair to compare the
broad based music market ratios to the audiophile ratios. I have a
hunch in the general sales the proportions between classical and
everything else are nowhere near as high as they are for SACD sales. I
am quite confident that of the top 50 Billboard top sellers youwill not
find as many as 10 classical titles. I suspect you won't find any
classical in the top 200..

Barring the occasional "three tenors" phenomenon (remember "Chant"?),
this is certainly true. But I didn't mean to challenge the notion that
classical is a bigger share of SACD than CD. I meant to challenge the
notion that SACD represents a boon to classical listeners because so
many new releases (and re-releases) are coming out in the format. The
relative health of the classical audiophile CD market suggests to me
that classical music lovers would still be well served if SACD did not
exist.

Now, it may be that the existence of a new format is prompting some
remastering that wouldn't otherwise be occurring. And it may be that
some consumers would be more willing to buy an old recording in a new
format than to buy an old recording that's just a remastered CD. So
maybe the existence of SACD is having some behavioral effects at the
margins. But the same companies that think they can make a profit on
classical SACDs also seem to think they can make a profit on classical
audiophile CDs. I doubt that calculation would change if we didn't have
SACD around.

Bob, the real excitement in classical SACD isn't the reissues...those were
exciting to audiophiles because the MLP and LS series were audiophile
favorites in LP form and because Pentatone tapped a pretty deep resevoir of
really fine quad recordings from the '70's.....but the real excitement for
classical fans are the numerous smaller european labels that are issuing
both well known and very obscure repetoire on single-inventory multichannel
SACD's, and because the mainstream US orchestras (as well as the London
Symphony Orchestra,) after having not been represented for many years, are
launching their own labels, almost all on multichannel SACD. This latter
seems to be "catching on" as it allows orchestras to use their performances
as raw material, with relatively little cost (compared to the old paradigm)
in issuing silver disks and selling direct, thus efficiently reaching a
worldwide niche market.

[bob]

Harry Lavo wrote:
Bob, the real excitement in classical SACD isn't the reissues...those were
exciting to audiophiles because the MLP and LS series were audiophile
favorites in LP form and because Pentatone tapped a pretty deep resevoir of
really fine quad recordings from the '70's.....but the real excitement for
classical fans are the numerous smaller european labels that are issuing
both well known and very obscure repetoire on single-inventory multichannel
SACD's, and because the mainstream US orchestras (as well as the London
Symphony Orchestra,) after having not been represented for many years, are
launching their own labels, almost all on multichannel SACD. This latter
seems to be "catching on" as it allows orchestras to use their performances
as raw material, with relatively little cost (compared to the old paradigm)
in issuing silver disks and selling direct, thus efficiently reaching a
worldwide niche market.

Well, if SACDs excite you this way, then downloads should excite you
even more! You can buy three (3) SACDs of recent Philadelphia Orchestra
performances. Or you can download 29 works (plus more from the
archives). And the downloads don't even have to be MP3s. For a small
surcharge, you can download FLAC files, so you get full CD quality.

I know of only one major U.S. orchestra putting out SACDs on its own
label--San Francisco. And I know of only one major U.S. orchestra with
a contract with a "smaller european label" to put out SACDs--Philly,
with Ondine. Are there others? Or are these just one-off experiments?

By contrast, I know of two major U.S. orchestras--Philly and NY--that
are making recent performances available via download. If I were a
classical music fan interested in recordings of recent performances
(and I might be*), I'd be much more excited about the prospects for
downloads than SACDs. And if I were an orchestra director, I'd be
putting more of my eggs in the download basket as well.

*I don't feel a burning need for yet another Beethoven cycle, but I'd
consider a "virtual subscription" to the St. Louis, just to hear what
David Robertson is up to out there.

bob

[RobertLang]

Any statistics on classical music that you (we) might offer are not only
scanty but are most certainly untrustworthy. For sure, they cannot be
used, not even remotely, as an indicator of the genre's profitability or
influence ("60 Minutes" is just as likely, if not more likely to feature a
classical music artist, as any other), the "Bill Board Top 40"
notwithstanding.

I for one have purchased thousands of recordings over the years. I bet
you not a *single* recording in more than 20 years, has been in the "top
50". But I nonetheless continue to have a wide (and growing) selection of
classical and, more recently, jazz music that I support. Not to mention,
in my area, the San Francisco Bay Area, there has been a documented
resurgence of live jazz and classical music.

Likewise, I bet not one of my audio components is a "top seller", probably
not even in the top 100. I ride motorcycles, which constitute just a
fraction of the vehicles on the road, and my BMW bike represents just a
small fraction of that pie. Small sales don't always mean that a genre or
industry is in its death throes, just like mega sellers such as GM and
Ford, and yes, Tower Records, that sold largely non classical music, don't
always mean prosperity.

Speaking of "Bill Board" magazine, I recall an article about three years
ago that declining sales of both jazz and classical music had leveled off
and both were making small gains in the marketplace. Whether this is true
it really doesn't matter, at least for the foreseeable future, because
there seems to have been a mini explosion of both genre in their
availability among the half dozen sources where I purchase music.

By the way, it doesn’t show up in the “statistics”, but I, as most SACD
supporters, have *purchased* our discs at fair value. We have not
downloaded them, pirated copies, or otherwise injured the artists or the
labels. This may immeasurably help the format industry supporters.

For me SACD has been unbelievably fortuitous. I have 300-400 discs and am
at a zenith in music listening enjoyment. I'm not one to argue two
channel SACD superiority over CD. Because with SACD multi-channel (the
non-debatable difference between the two formats). It really doesn't
matter anymore.

Robert C. Lang

[Kalman Rubinson]

On 4 Dec 2006 04:19:26 GMT, "bob" wrote:

I know of only one major U.S. orchestra putting out SACDs on its own
label--San Francisco. And I know of only one major U.S. orchestra with
a contract with a "smaller european label" to put out SACDs--Philly,
with Ondine. Are there others? Or are these just one-off experiments?

Add Minnesota with BIS. Of course, there are several non-US
orchestras with their own series on SACD such as the LSO, the LPO and
the RCO.

Kal

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
Bob, the real excitement in classical SACD isn't the reissues...those
were
exciting to audiophiles because the MLP and LS series were audiophile
favorites in LP form and because Pentatone tapped a pretty deep resevoir
of
really fine quad recordings from the '70's.....but the real excitement
for
classical fans are the numerous smaller european labels that are issuing
both well known and very obscure repetoire on single-inventory
multichannel
SACD's, and because the mainstream US orchestras (as well as the London
Symphony Orchestra,) after having not been represented for many years,
are
launching their own labels, almost all on multichannel SACD. This latter
seems to be "catching on" as it allows orchestras to use their
performances
as raw material, with relatively little cost (compared to the old
paradigm)
in issuing silver disks and selling direct, thus efficiently reaching a
worldwide niche market.

Well, if SACDs excite you this way, then downloads should excite you
even more! You can buy three (3) SACDs of recent Philadelphia Orchestra
performances. Or you can download 29 works (plus more from the
archives). And the downloads don't even have to be MP3s. For a small
surcharge, you can download FLAC files, so you get full CD quality.

I know of only one major U.S. orchestra putting out SACDs on its own
label--San Francisco. And I know of only one major U.S. orchestra with
a contract with a "smaller european label" to put out SACDs--Philly,
with Ondine. Are there others? Or are these just one-off experiments?

By contrast, I know of two major U.S. orchestras--Philly and NY--that
are making recent performances available via download. If I were a
classical music fan interested in recordings of recent performances
(and I might be*), I'd be much more excited about the prospects for
downloads than SACDs. And if I were an orchestra director, I'd be
putting more of my eggs in the download basket as well.

*I don't feel a burning need for yet another Beethoven cycle, but I'd
consider a "virtual subscription" to the St. Louis, just to hear what
David Robertson is up to out there.

Last time I looked, there was no such thing as a multi-channel FLAC. You
have your preferences; I have mine. But I am not alone, as their are many
other classical music fans who *know* that multi-channel SACD gets you
closer to the music in the hall than any other medium. And the Orchestras
know this as well, regardless of what decisions their business office makes.

The Chicago Symphony has just announced their own label....CD's and
downloads, although they are getting protests to switch to Hybrid SACD.

[RobertLang]

I have found multi-channel SACDs to be the ultimate (so far) revelation in
recorded music. I'm not talking about a "wow" factor. I'm talking about
the very best sound in recorded music.

For sound improvement I would not look at your SACD player, that I'm sure
is fine. And for the most part I would not look at the disc that I have
found to be, as a group, *ever* recorded among the thousands of recordings
I own and experienced.

Instead, I would look at your system set up that I have found to be the
Achilles Hill that impedes top performance of a SACD multi-channel system.

Did you use a setup disc and sound level pressure meter to set things up?
This is *very* simple to do. Otherwise, I believe set up of a SACD
multi-channel system is a crapshoot with only a smidgen of a chance of
getting your system set up correctly. You have to be exceedingly lucky to
get things balanced without a reference disc. But reading remarks of
numerous audiophiles and music lovers (most who interchangeably
swap/confuse “home theater” and “ SACD multi-channel music) who have
invested in multi-channel systems very rarely is a set up disc mentioned.

1) For starters you said, "I have been playing around with both systems".
"Playing around" is the key phrase here. Seriously, you can't play around
with a quality SACD multi-channel audio system and even have a prayer of
getting it right. This speaks directly to hardware set-up. There is no way
that one can have even a smidgen of a prayer of optimizing a SACD
multi-channel without a multi-channel test disc, such as one by Phillips
or the Telarc test portion on the "1812 Ouverture" disc and a sound
pressure level meter.

You indicated that your SACD multi-channel system and your home theater
system serve both. It seems that you have not decided if you want your
system to be an optimized SACD multi-channel *video* system or an
optimized multi-channel *audio* system. While an audio system can be
optimized for both good two-channel *audio* and multi-channel *audio*, it
probably cannot be optimized for good multi-channel *video* and
multi-channel *audio*. To excel in multi-channel audio you will almost
definitely have to compromise on the audio portion of the multi-channel
video. This is what you have seemed to have done.

Nothing is wrong your approach to combine audio and video systems,but you
can't expect great multi-channel SACD if the set up favors video. The
requirements for video and audio are vastly different. And not to come
across as a "purist", that I'm definitely not, but if you have a big fat
TV in between your mains with a HT type center speaker it will be
extremely difficult for you to discover SACD multi-channel

There is no question that setting up a quality multi-channel *audio*
system is more demanding than setting up a two-channel system. And it
could be that after you optimally set up your system you may still prefer
two-channel, although that is unlikely for classical music listeners. Or
for some discs you may prefer one to the other. The beauty of SACD is that
you can switch back and forth with a push of a button. But you won't know
until you start off with a properly set up system.

Please describe your system and how you set it up and perhaps those of us
that have had excellent experiences with multi-channel SACD *audio* can
provide you some assistance. I don't think it's necessary to describe the
actual components because quality or cost is not the issue here. How the
system is set up is the issue.

Robert C. Lang

[RobertLang]

Agreed. I too cannot keep up with the new releases of SACDs and I have
purchased close to 100 in 2006. And except for Art Blakey and The Jazz
Messengers "Keystone 3", that I will purchase as a gift for a friend of
mine, I have adjourned purchases for the rest of the year. It's too much!

I am buying more SACDs, than I ever bought CDs or records, except for in
my youth. In the decade or so before SACD my CD purchases had slowed to a
sickly trickle.

I find that almost all new releases, far more than I can ever hope to
comsume, are multi-channel releases.

Robert C. Lang

[bob]

Harry Lavo wrote:
Last time I looked, there was no such thing as a multi-channel FLAC. You
have your preferences; I have mine.

I'd prefer to have more than 3 recordings to choose from.

But I am not alone, as their are many
other classical music fans who *know* that multi-channel SACD gets you
closer to the music in the hall than any other medium.

No question, it gets you a better three-dimensional experience--the
illusion that you are listening in a larger hall.

And the Orchestras
know this as well, regardless of what decisions their business office makes.

The Chicago Symphony has just announced their own label....CD's and
downloads, although they are getting protests to switch to Hybrid SACD.

I imagine, at this point, that the cost premium of producing hybrid
SACD over standard CD is pretty small. If so, then it makes perfect
sense to produce the former, since you'll probably sell marginally more
units. But these orchestras (Kal mentioned others) aren't creating new
marketing channels because of SACD. They're creating new channels
because the old ones didn't work. If SACD disappeared tomorrow,
nobody'd be doing anything differently--they'd just all be doing it in
2 channels.

So, yes, I'd agree with you that SACD offers the now-unique advantage
of multichannel audio. But somewhere back in the misty past of this
thread, you said something that sounded to me like a claim that SACD
was resulting in more classical recordings being produced. That
suggestion (intended or not) seems to have very little basis.

Speaking of new classical channels, here's a report on another one:

http://www.stereophile.com/news/120406heaven/

These guys are producing on-demand CDRs of older material that's not
available anymore. THAT is the kind of thing that actually increases
the availability of classical music.

bob

[Harry Lavo]

"RobertLang" wrote in message
...
Agreed. I too cannot keep up with the new releases of SACDs and I have
purchased close to 100 in 2006. And except for Art Blakey and The Jazz
Messengers "Keystone 3", that I will purchase as a gift for a friend of
mine, I have adjourned purchases for the rest of the year. It's too much!

I am buying more SACDs, than I ever bought CDs or records, except for in
my youth. In the decade or so before SACD my CD purchases had slowed to a
sickly trickle.

I find that almost all new releases, far more than I can ever hope to
comsume, are multi-channel releases.


Ain't "Keystone 3" a real treasure....even my brother-in-law, who is an avid
jazz collector, seemed unaware of the title until I brought the SACD home,
and ....wow...one of my favorite modern jazz recordings...wonderful in
multi-channel even though I suspect synthesized.

My experience exactly parallels yours...I was buying LP's through the
eighties, bought a couple of dozen CD's in the late '80's / early '90's that
I got so little pleasure out of that I just stopped buying. I already had a
good classical collection...I didn't replace it with CD's. Ditto for jazz,
for the most part. Most of my CD's were pop-rock stuff that I had skipped
in the seventies and eighties. Then along came SACD, and I am now several
hundred discs poorer, but also several hundred disks happier. The
multichannel sound I am hearing now is for me audio nirvana. For classical,
it is hard to imagine better so I am once again expanding (and in some cases
replacing) my classical collection. And I have added probably forty jazz
titles that I otherwise probably would not have bought had it not been for
SACD.

What I can't figure out is....did the 30 somethings running Sony's record
division when SACD came out ever figure out that people who got hooked on
SACD bought and bought and bought...and that these were in many cases
previously "lost" customers like you or I. If I had that data confirmed
through my research, I would have been on a plane to Japan with my
marketing plan in hand, requesting the money. I suspect a lack of marketing
competence doomed SACD more than any lack of acceptance. You can't get
turned on to something you don't even know about.

[Adam Sampson]

"Harry Lavo" writes:

Last time I looked, there was no such thing as a multi-channel FLAC.

The FLAC format supports up to 8 channels, although like you I haven't
seen anyone making use of it yet.

--
Adam Sampson http://offog.org/

[William Eckle]

On 5 Dec 2006 04:13:04 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Ain't "Keystone 3" a real treasure....even my brother-in-law, who is an avid
jazz collector, seemed unaware of the title until I brought the SACD home,
and ....wow...one of my favorite modern jazz recordings...wonderful in
multi-channel even though I suspect synthesized.

Hi Harry:
Thanks for the tip on "Keystone 3", I ordered it today.
If you haven't already, check Miles Davis "In A Silent Way",
multi-channel SACD. A different side of Miles, and my favorate
keyboardist, Joe Zawinul on organ. Decodes nicely in surround too.

-=Bill Eckle=-

Vanity Web Page at:
http://www.wmeckle.com

[RobertLang]

In my response to Mike's ("Twinmountain") post I attributed a quote to him
that he did not make. Please ignore the following (in the 5th paragraph):

1) For starters you said, "I have been playing around with both systems".
"Playing around" is the key phrase here. Seriously, you can't play around
with a quality SACD multi-channel audio system and even have a prayer of
getting it right.

Sorry about the error.

Robert C. Lang