Post by rammiepie August 22, 2012 (11 of 116)
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
I believe the usual characterization of the classical market is that it is comprised of a small fraction of recorded music consumers that typically provides much more market demand than consumers of other music genres. Perhaps that is why we see more classical SACD titles than jazz or rock, etc.
Partially true, Euell. If one notices, the predominant Vinyl sales are propelled by the Rock, Pop and Jazz markets and were these titles available in 5.1 SACD, I am sure they would sell equally as well.
The only domestic producer of a trickle of 5.1 Rock/Pop SACD releases remains Acoustic Sounds and except for Wish You Were Here, most have already been released in multichannel before......the Doors in 5.1 DVD~A, Nora Jones in a botched Blue Note 5.1 SACD and Time Out on an early SONY SACD release.
Supposedly the two upcoming Cat Stevens SACDs from AP will be 5.1.
Only a handful of 3~channel Jazz reissues including the Nat King Cole SACDs have also been released in the SACD format!
Perhaps 17 Vinyl presing plants vs. NO domestic SACD pressing plants to me was an eye (or ear) opener since I think SACD would be much more acceptable if all those vinyl releases were multichannel or high quality stereo SACDs.
This format will barely survive on classical only mch SACD releases as the statistics don't lie...........
|
|
|
|
|
|
rammiepie said:
Partially true, Euell. If one notices, the predominant Vinyl sales are propelled by the Rock, Pop and Jazz markets and were these titles available in 5.1 SACD, I am sure they would sell equally as well.
The only domestic producer of a trickle of 5.1 Rock/Pop SACD releases remains Acoustic Sounds and except for Wish You Were Here, most have already been released in multichannel before......the Doors in 5.1 DVD~A, Nora Jones in a botched Blue Note 5.1 SACD and Time Out on an early SONY SACD release.
Supposedly the two upcoming Cat Stevens SACDs from AP will be 5.1.
Only a handful of 3~channel Jazz reissues including the Nat King Cole SACDs have also been released in the SACD format!
Perhaps 17 Vinyl presing plants vs. NO domestic SACD pressing plants to me was an eye (or ear) opener since I think SACD would be much more acceptable if all those vinyl releases were multichannel or high quality stereo SACDs.
This format will barely survive on classical only mch SACD releases as the statistics don't lie...........
Apparently, you've never heard the expression "lies, damned lies and statistics."
But, seriously, no easy conclusions can be drawn, other than a suspicion that recording companies believe there is not a commercially significant market for pop and jazz SACD's.
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie August 22, 2012 (13 of 116)
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
Apparently, you've never heard the expression "lies, damned lies and statistics."
But, seriously, no easy conclusions can be drawn, other than a suspicion that recording companies believe there is not a commercially significant market for pop and jazz SACD's.
Euell, I sincerely believe that if the individual artists want their music remixed to 5.1 surround and of course if they own the master tapes, that is how POP/Rock SACDs in mch get released.
Mch Classical releases, I believe, will reach the point that like BIS and Channel, it would be a more profitable venue if downloading became the norm...........
Since the computer has become somewhat of a nucleus in households across the world, the future of downloads is inevitable.
If I want my pop rock and jazz fix, I will continue to purchase what is available in 5.1, albeit in lossy 5.1 96/24 DTS formats as, thankfully, my Meridian 800 which was recently upgraded does a glorious job of decoding these lossy formats...........one would be hard pressed to decipher "some" of those lossy 5.1s from actual SACDs and DVD~As............they CAN sound quite glorious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, download beats SACD for profit, but I see little movement in the U.S. towards download dominance anytime in the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, download beats SACD for profit, but I see little movement in the U.S. towards download dominance anytime in the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, download beats SACD for profit, but I see little movement in the U.S. towards download dominance anytime in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie August 22, 2012 (17 of 116)
|
|
Euell Neverno said:
Of course, download beats SACD for profit, but I see little movement in the U.S. towards download dominance anytime in the near future.
Amazon US probably makes a veritable bundle of cash with MP3 and book downloads............the majority of Americans are into downloading movies, books, music and SEX!
Me, I still prefer books, magazines and physical discs...........call me old fashioned but old habits die hard!
|
|
|
Post by efercost August 22, 2012 (18 of 116)
|
|
In my country, Brazil, there are at least four big Compact Disc pressing plants, one vinyl pressing plant, and no one SACD. The music industry has a battle with piracy here. Street vendors and Chinese mafia are responsible for that. I wonder why SACD wasn't acceptable to the massive market.
|
|
|
Post by efercost August 22, 2012 (19 of 116)
|
|
I know that producing a vinyl disc is more expensive than a CD. Regarding the SACD I really don't know. Perhaps producing SACDs is more expensive than vinyl discs.
|
|
|
Post by dobyblue August 23, 2012 (20 of 116)
|
|
rammiepie said:
Amazon US probably makes a veritable bundle of cash with MP3 and book downloads............the majority of Americans are into downloading movies, books, music and SEX!
Me, I still prefer books, magazines and physical discs...........call me old fashioned but old habits die hard!
I agree, anytime any of my physical purchases result in an e-mail saying "you've received x$ credit towards .mp3 downloads" or "start your free video stream of x movie now" I just delete them, because I have ZERO interest in .mp3's or video that isn't at least HD broadcast quality but preferably Blu-ray quality with lossless audio.
|
|
