Post by racerguy July 15, 2005 (31 of 39)
|
|
The explanation seems relatively simple to me; however, it is not one single issue. There are multiple factors which add up to the situation as we currently know it.
Please be advised that I was not propagating a euphemism as you charged. Sony's output DID dramatically decrease in 2004, eventually coming to a virtual (but not complete) halt. Labels such as Warner never did put out any SACDs in the US (but did in other parts of the world).
Anyway, some of the multiple factors I am aware of are:
- Mechanical royalties issue in the US. This issue was promulgated by the Harry Fox Agency, and caused huge problems for RIAA members, especially Sony. It pretty much caused the release of popular music on SACD (and DVD-A) to grind to a halt for several of the labels. This kind of stuff doesn't affect most classical music.
- Sony and BMG merger. A freeze was placed on "special projects," including SACD. This is standard merger stuff. Too bad for those affected, but that's the way it works.
- Marketing realities. Both SACD and DVD-A were marketed with an absolutely breathtaking amount of naivete and unfounded optimism. It's quite obvious to me that none of the companies involved in developing these technologies did any historical analysis. If they had, it would have been quite clear that neither format would succeed as a mainstream product. The bulk of the music- and technology-buying public has consistently chosen features and convenience over sound quality and performance since the dawn of recorded media and playback equipment. This is all very well-documented, but the marketeers apparently didn't bother to research it in their zeal to come up with a RBCD replacement.
This goes to your final question. At this point, NOTHING, not even a flood of pop music releases, is going to propel SACD out of a niche market. To me, given all of the historical evidence, marketing failures, and legal/technological issues, it was never going to be anything but a niche in the first place. I think the major labels have finally come to that realization, so I don't think there will be much in the way of big releases of new or back-catalog stuff going forward (other than sideways licenses of material to smaller labels that are willing to exploit the niche).
So, the state of SACD is that it is a niche product, and it appears to be well-positioned to remain a viable, albeit small, niche for the forseeable future. It's not a perfect situation, but it's still pretty good. It's certainly better than what has transpired for DVD-A, which is for all intents a dead format.
|
|
|
Post by Iet July 15, 2005 (32 of 39)
|
|
Thanks 'racerguy' for your interesting analysis which I endorse. However, for me it still remains a puzzle why the music and audio sellers are so remarkably unaware and uninformed about SACD. I have the same ambivalent experience as 'mknappe' that we, as clients, have to inform the stores sales staff about what's going on in their professional area. In most cases they even haven't a slightest idea until some SACD devotee make them enthusiastic, and with respect to classical music luckily in my home town we are successful.
More painful to me is the situation at stores selling high end audio systems. Certainly before the development of the SACD, when using extraordinary equipments, the audio purists had a case to favour vinyl above the compact disc, but from a sonic perspective (aside sentimental arguments) to me this situation was definitively changed by SACD. Nevertheless I am often flabbergasted by the subjectivity and nonsense I hear about SACD in those high end audio stores. In most cases sales people have a wrong opinion based on some rumors or trivial issues (like indeed the 'stereo versus multi-channel' controversy or 'another hype of Sony'), have never hear a SACD in real and for high end performance swear on extremely costly vinyl players or CD-player of over 20.000 Euro having an exceptional D/A convertor (or so). An important high end audio seller, after many years of strong resistance, recently confess me that he shortly became convinced about the superiority of SACD, because he had seen the results of 'lab comparisons' of the different audio formats, but - he continued - this would not change his resistance, because SACD was (quote) "near to dead and already giving up by Sony".....
|
|
|
Post by monotone July 16, 2005 (33 of 39)
|
|
racerguy said:
It's certainly better than what has transpired for DVD-A, which is for all intents a dead format.
Is DVD-A considered dead with the current growth of Dualdisc?
Which I believe is part CD/DVD-A & DVD-V?
|
|
|
Post by racerguy July 16, 2005 (34 of 39)
|
|
monotone said:
Is DVD-A considered dead with the current growth of Dualdisc?
Which I believe is part CD/DVD-A & DVD-V?
DVD-A content is totally optional for DualDisc. The vast majority of DualDiscs released don't have DVD-A content. Out of all the DualDiscs released since the beginning of 2005, I count less than 10 with DVD-A content on them. Universal Music was putting DVD-A content on all of their DualDisc releases, but they seem to have stopped that process as well.
So yes, I think DVD-A is pretty much dead. It's too bad.
|
|
|
Post by monotone July 17, 2005 (35 of 39)
|
|
racerguy said:
DVD-A content is totally optional for DualDisc. The vast majority of DualDiscs released don't have DVD-A content. Out of all the DualDiscs released since the beginning of 2005, I count less than 10 with DVD-A content on them. Universal Music was putting DVD-A content on all of their DualDisc releases, but they seem to have stopped that process as well.
So yes, I think DVD-A is pretty much dead. It's too bad.
Got it!
Was assuming all Dualdisc are DVD-A/DVD-V
|
|
|
Post by vonwegen July 19, 2005 (36 of 39)
|
|
racerguy said:
So, the state of SACD is that it is a niche product, and it appears to be well-positioned to remain a viable, albeit small, niche for the forseeable future. It's not a perfect situation, but it's still pretty good. It's certainly better than what has transpired for DVD-A, which is for all intents a dead format.
We would all do well to remember that stereo LPs were also considered a small niche market really only for fans of classical music who "want to immerse themselves in music" until the late 1960s. Until then, most pop/rock artists didn't even stick around in the studio to supervise the mixes of their stuff in stereo, and that includes the Beatles. They were extremely finicky about the mono mixes, because that is what got played on the radio...
|
|
|
|
|
|
racerguy said:
Anyway, some of the multiple factors I am aware of are:
- Mechanical royalties issue in the US. This issue was promulgated by the Harry Fox Agency, and caused huge problems for RIAA members, especially Sony. It pretty much caused the release of popular music on SACD (and DVD-A) to grind to a halt for several of the labels. This kind of stuff doesn't affect most classical music.
What exactly is the mechanical royalty issue? Is it the fact that a multi-channel mix is considered a derivative work, for which the record company has to seek permission from the composer/performer?
T7T
|
|
|
Post by Claude August 26, 2006 (38 of 39)
|
|
The permission is not the problem, but the additional royalties. It's all about money.
AFAIK, this is the result of collective negociations between the composers union and the music industry, and the legal interpretation of these contracts, which were concluded without SACD, DVD-A or other new formats in mind. In Europe, there are no such additional royalties for multichannel mixes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claude said:
The permission is not the problem, but the additional royalties. It's all about money.
Ok, I see. The economics of releasing multi-channel remixes for the record companies have consequently worsened. On the other hand, for artists it has become more attractive so it's shocking to see they're doing so little from their side to push this.
T7T
|
|
