Thread: WHY SACD FORMAT is not dead according to Alan Sircom

Posts: 39
Page: prev 1 2 3 4

Post by Tourboots March 18, 2014 (31 of 39)
hiredfox said:

Nearly 50% of the orchestral recordings reviewed by Gramophone in March Ed. are SACD and one is Editor's Choice for the month, the RR Strauuss recording which we suggested might become an award winner.

That is good news. Were some or all reviewed in respect of the SACD sound quality? It was the reason that I stopped my subscription some years back as I was fed up with the fact that they could not be bothered to review a multichannel SACD and reflect on that, which is a bit of an insult to their customers, but more importantly to the artists and the record company that takes the time and makes the investment to offer top quality sound to make the most of the music on offer, which surely is what Gramophone should be encouraging.

Post by Beagle March 18, 2014 (32 of 39)
hiredfox said:
Have you ever met the guy?

JL, If you have met him, please email me. --SG

Post by Boilers March 19, 2014 (33 of 39)
Yes, the BBC CD review on Saturday morning regularly features SACD discs. In recent weeks we have had favourable reviews of Aho, Gardner's Mendelssohn, Haitink's Bruckner, Dausgaard's Schubert, Jennifer Pike and James Macmillan etc. The presenter (Andrew McGregor) will say if its a SACD after each review, and from time to time refers to the quality of the multi-channel recording as appropriate. Its a good resource for those interested in hi res and SACD recordings - at least on this side of the pond - as indeed is SA-CD.net (for which I am pleased to post for the first time). Similar comments apply to the International Record Review. It seems to me that SACD is thriving!

David

Post by hiredfox March 19, 2014 (34 of 39)
Tourboots said:

That is good news. Were some or all reviewed in respect of the SACD sound quality?

Based on remarks made by reviewers, I'd suggest 'Yes' in most if not all cases as they specifically mention SACD sound quality but no hint of mch listening so another guess is they listen in stereo.

Post by hiredfox March 19, 2014 (35 of 39)
Beagle said:

JL, If you have met him, please email me. --SG

Only at UK shows through demonstrations and chats. Hi Fi + used to have its office in Ringwood close to my home when Roy Gregory was at the helm so quite well acquainted with him. I do not have a similar personal connection with Alan Sircom as the office was moved away from Ringwood when he took over.

Post by Euell Neverno March 19, 2014 (36 of 39)
hiredfox said:

Nearly 50% of the orchestral recordings reviewed by Gramophone in March Ed. are SACD and one is Editor's Choice for the month, the RR Strauuss recording which we suggested might become an award winner.

While the number of SACD recordings reviewed in the March Gramophone is up, there is a lot of room for further improvement. To wit: 9 of 25 orchestral reviews, 1 of 20 chamber reviews, 1 of 18 instrumental reviews, 2 of 20 vocal reviews, and 4 of 7 opera reviews are of SACD's (numbers do not include video releases).

17 of 90 total reviews is under 20 percent. Still, that is a high number when one considers what must be a higher ratio of RBCD's to SACD's produced.

Post by rammiepie March 19, 2014 (37 of 39)
Euell Neverno said:

17 of 90 total reviews is under 20 percent. Still, that is a high number when one considers what must be a higher ratio of RBCD's to SACD's produced.

RBCDs are literally being 'catapulted' out lately.

Ironically, I was amused with AP's recent Living Stereo SACD releases at $30 each when within two weeks I will have in my possession the Living Stereo box set #2 of sixty (read: 60) Living Stereo RBCDs for US $75 delivered (do the math: under $1.30 per RBCD)!

It cost more than $1.30 to manufacture an SACD and certainly much, MUCH less than the new Pentatone DSD downloads @ over $40 each (US)!

More ironically, one can buy a motion picture and/or concert video on Blu Ray disc* for less (sometimes, again, MUCH less) than the music conglomerates are charging for even RBCDs and SACDs!

Why it is and remains that a high definition BD~V with greater content, involving many more man hours in assembling/authoring the disc can be less than a music only disc still BOGGLES MY MIND!

Am I missing something, here?

{It still costs more to manufacture a BD~V disc w/case than a single SACD + RBCD, combined}!

Post by tailspn March 19, 2014 (38 of 39)
rammiepie said:

Am I missing something, here?

{It still costs more to manufacture a BD~V disc w/case than a single SACD + RBCD, combined}!

It's the Catch 22 Milo Minderburger law of economics. You buy a dozen eggs in France for $1.82, fly them to the UK (WWII time remember) and sell them for $1.00 even. You make it up in volume.

Post by rammiepie March 19, 2014 (39 of 39)
tailspn said:

It's the Catch 22 Milo Minderburger law of economics. You buy a dozen eggs in France for $1.82, fly them to the UK (WWII time remember) and sell them for $1.00 even. You make it up in volume.

No wonder they don't put eggs in the egg cremes anymore!

And then there's the psychological marketing caveat 'Limited Edition' applied to the SHM~SACDs, MoFi and AP SACDs. If you don't buy it immediately, it will 'vanish' FOREVER except on E~bay or from Amazon's third party vendor lists for thousands of pesos!

Maybe I should take up gardening ...... or has the price of seeds skyrocketed?

Page: prev 1 2 3 4

Closed