Post by pacwin October 18, 2013 (1 of 150)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More realistic to say, "I want to stop pressing SACDS because I want to set the price for future releases and I am greedy."
So Jared and others want to see us spending $30+ for downloads? Well, that will be the end of my purchase of Channel product. Thanks for mocking those who buy SACD, Jared. You may have a very clear idea what it takes to produce music, but you clearly think people are ready to spend $30+ dollars for something they can get for half that price. Further, it's clear the effort here is to eliminate choice and to push people into buying something--smacks of an effort to produce a monopoly in my opinion.
Downloads may very well be the future, but what you are doing is essentially killing what is the most important thing and that is the music itself.
|
|
|
Post by Tourboots October 19, 2013 (3 of 150)
|
|
Well, if Channel stops pressing SACDs, my budget won't be spent on their downloads. I have no objection to downloads, it's just that I don't want them. I like having a physical medium that I own and that I can keep, sell or lend as I please and also have the pleasure of a collection I can see and enjoy. So I can't see me spending money with Channel in the future if this is to be their policy.
It strikes me as a bit crazy at the moment. Universal are trying to push BluRay audio discs which are priced for the few to enjoy and are not as versatile as SACDs and I still fail to see their attraction at all. Indeed on the Facebook page 'Pure High Fidelity, someone was suggesting adding a CD to the package - why when a Hybrid does the job just as well and is not priced as high as a BluRay Audio? Expensive downloads are being developed, which only the few will probably enjoy, I don't intend to be paying the price quoted as my budget is limited, while SACDs which are affordable for the many and which many people want are to be removed as choices. It seems to me that some out there choose to ignore their customers, but we shall see. Perhaps SACD will enjoy the strange revival that vinyl is going through. An odd world!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reading the links Pacwin added above there are two glaring truths which the contributors have just skated round.
1. The recent spate of distributor failures have hurt all labels. There is not only unpaid bills but loss of distribution for days, weeks or even months. Who could blame labels for not wanting to continue relying on the current system for putting their products in front of buyers. In addition, retail outlets have shrunk to nearly nothing, greatly restricting the initial print runs.
2. The price of SACD's IS too low. It is accepted that because the format includes the RBCD it is that which drives the price. However, I have just bought new release SACDs from Channel and Linn for under £10 delivered. That is little over £7 if you take off delivery cost and tax. Some of the smaller indie labels do seem to be increasing their prices (certainly for purchase direct from their websites) up to as much as 18 euros plus delivery.
So what is the answer? If I knew I could be a rich man! These DSD downloads are much too expensive and not for everyone. SACDs are too cheap. Perhaps if they met in the middle both sides of the argument would be happy and both formats could flourish side by side. Is the middle blu-ray audio? We will have to wait and see but I am afraid that for the classical market at least, the Universal ones are not the answer and run the risk of killing the whole initiative. How about a 30 euro sacd with a free dsd download? (Sacd without copy protection?) Or blu-ray audio with free DSD download?
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox October 19, 2013 (5 of 150)
|
|
It will of course not happen but it does sour our appreciation of Jared. It seems he is no longer one of us, a fellow traveller.
This is not a music download site old chap and your message is not what this forum wants to hear. Not a single reputable hi fi critic has yet suggested that the quality of music derived from downloaded files anywhere near approaches the quality available from Physical disc. Surely that matters? People say its only a matter of time, how much time do you need? Downloading has been around a long time almost as long as SACD.
|
|
|
Post by canonical October 19, 2013 (6 of 150)
|
|
Tourboots said:
Well, if Channel stops pressing SACDs, my budget won't be spent on their downloads. I have no objection to downloads, it's just that I don't want them.
Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by Pete S October 19, 2013 (7 of 150)
|
|
To some extent I can see his point, the price SACDs are selling for is far to low.
I don't know how anyone can make a living at the price they sell at.
But over priced high quality downloads is not the answer. And the vinyl business model is not valid for DSD. Vinyl will always be a very small niche market, with (in my opinion) customers who have more money than sense.
A major problem with DSD downloads, is the play back method of DSD files.
I have SACD disks which I can play in any SACD player. I have one in the living room, one in the bedroom, one on my bench at work, one in my computer room, I even have a multi channel SACD player in the car.
I don't want to use my computer every time I want to play some music, nor do i want to have to purchase an over priced DSD sound card in order to play the files.
I also like to have the booklet etc that comes with a disk, which I can read sitting listening to the music, sure I can download the booklet as a pdf & read it on my computer, I have a 27" iMac, its hard to balance that on my lap while listening to music.
The final point about playback method is noise, what is the point of paying for super high quality DSD downloads, if I have to play them on a computer which sits on the floor making noises like a jet engine?
As to the issue of copy protection, again they are in cloud cookoo land. Anyone with a sound card can copy any file played out via the analogue outputs of a player or via the analogue outputs of another sound card. I am a broadcast sound engineer, my Edirol 10ch Sound card on the Mac may not be in the same league as the converters used to make the DSD files, but its good enough. if someone wants to copy a disk, DSD's copy protection will not stop them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
hiredfox said:
Not a single reputable hi fi critic has yet suggested that the quality of music derived from downloaded files anywhere near approaches the quality available from Physical disc.
Really? I must admit that I do not much read hi fi critics (reputable or disreputable) but I do not recall concrete statements one way or the other. As for despicable me, I prefer the files for their convenience and do not think that they are at all inferior to the physical discs.
That said, I do not want to see the disappearance of physical discs. Too many people have adapted their listening habits to them and would be put out by having to re-adapt to streaming. Besides, I get something out of just seeing all of them!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have anything against downloads but I simply can't afford them at current prices. CDs and SACDs are already expensive as they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tourboots said:
Well, if Channel stops pressing SACDs, my budget won't be spent on their downloads.
Quite so!
If Channel Records stops pressing SACD’s it may well mean the end of a (high) quality label. Not many will be tempted buy their € 30 surround DSD downloads. In any case not me. (Besides: these files are HUGE). Not a wise move, I should think.
Would be interesting to know what other premium labels think. Any comments from those members?
|
|
