[Harry Lavo]

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

Not the number of available titles, which only shows that they've put
out a lot of stuff that hasn't sold.

Please explain the logic behind that conclusion. Do tell us how after
ten years of putting out more and more titles that ,as you claim, are
not selling that these niche companies remain in business. Please tell
us how the economics work here to support your assertion.

Simply, really. If the audiophile labels put out 200 releases 5 years
ago, and they are putting out 200 releases this year, that is not
evidence of a growing market. Just because there are now 1000 titles in
the catalog doesn't mean the market's bigger.

Whereas, if there were 100 releases a year 5 years ago, and 200 a year
now, that would be suggestive of a larger market, or at least that the
producers think there's a larger market. (It's only suggestive, of
course, because it says nothing about sales.)


However, an increase over time in
the annual number of releases would constitute evidence of growth in
the market.

Which is exactly what has happened over the past ten to fifteen years
and in a substantial amount.

Asserted without evidence. As usual.

When you "live it", Bob, you don't have to "count".

If none or very few of those past records sold and are just sitting in
inventory as you claim, why have those companies been in business for ten or
more years?

That's the question "Porky" asked. And you haven't answered.

[bob]

Harry Lavo wrote:

If none or very few of those past records sold and are just sitting in
inventory as you claim, why have those companies been in business for ten or
more years?

I never said that none have sold. The existence of a back catalog
means that at least *some* have not sold. Obviously, enough have sold
to keep these companies in business. But the fact that enough have sold
to keep these companies in business is not evidence that sales are
growing.

bob

[Harry Lavo]

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

If none or very few of those past records sold and are just sitting in
inventory as you claim, why have those companies been in business for ten
or
more years?

I never said that none have sold. The existence of a back catalog
means that at least *some* have not sold. Obviously, enough have sold
to keep these companies in business. But the fact that enough have sold
to keep these companies in business is not evidence that sales are
growing.


Conversely, the fact that RIAA sales have declined with Sony pulling out of
SACD doesn't provide evidence that SACD is a dead market, as you seem to
always wish to trumpet. Particularly with the most vital part of this
market unlikely to be reflected in the RIAA stats.

[bob]

Harry Lavo wrote:

Conversely, the fact that RIAA sales have declined with Sony pulling out of
SACD doesn't provide evidence that SACD is a dead market, as you seem to
always wish to trumpet.

When? Where? Quote me saying this.

For the record, my position is and always has been that SACD is and
probably will remain a niche market. I don't think it'll grow much
beyond where it is now, but it'll be around for a while.

BTW, its market *share* (as well as that of vinyl) may well increase
somewhat, as the bottom continues to fall out of physical media
generally. Indeed, one can imagine a not-too-distant future when the
*only* people buying physical media are audiophiles. Everybody else
will have a $10/month subscription to all the music ever made--and I
don't see hi-rez becoming a download product. (Though I hope Blu-Ray or
whatever brings us to CD-quality surround, which will be downloadable
once the pipes get big enough.)

bob