Thread: SACD for M/C Audio & HiRez Downloads for Stereo? Is that the future?

Posts: 39
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 next

Post by Iain March 28, 2014 (21 of 39)
kelly200269 said:

Unfortunately, new player production is now severely on the wane, and it would seem that the volume of physical media being 'shipped' is also dramatically reducing, unless anyone has any data indicating otherwise??
As to your comment about the Esoteric: Completely irrelevant & inappropriate IMHO.

Please explain player production comment, as I've observed otherwise.

WRT Disbeliever's comment, it was directed to Jonalogic's comment of the Esoteric which was inappropriate for this thread.

Post by SteelyTom March 28, 2014 (22 of 39)
rammiepie said:


I may be hallucinating but I do think the SHM~SACD discs (which I can't treat...they crack) sound better!

Ralph, do you think the SHM part has anything to do with it, or is it simply superior Japanese mastering?

Post by tailspn March 28, 2014 (23 of 39)
kelly200269 said:

(HiRez Downloads...) But WHY are they so expensive? Availability, and competition is also severely lacking here in UK, with titles on US site sun available due to copyright issues.
It would seem like M/C audio WILL die a death with the eventual demise of SACD though, with the majority of current interest being in stereo FLAC/DSD downloads. What a shame...

Their not. Actually, for new music productions, especially classical, they finally begin to pay their way. And for the recent availability of new Hi-Rez newly re-mastered re-releases; the licensing costs alone, without the new production costs, lie between ten and twenty thousand dollars each. And that's just for US distribution. 3X that for world wide.

Add to that the costs of designing and opening a new download site, complete with order processing, file download management, server costs, and at least two people full-time to manage and run it, and you're facing a cool $100,000 upfront facilities investment, and another $70,000 a year expense line. How many $25 - $30 sales does it take to break even? I can tell you their not there yet, not by a long shot.

I disagree about M/C audio dying with the eventual fading away of SACD. Already one world-wide download co-op label site has multi-channel for each of its stereo DSD offerings. This will continue with other quality download sites.

And there's always BD-A :)

But I suspect it will die long before SACD.

Post by kelly200269 March 28, 2014 (24 of 39)
Iain said:

Please explain player production comment, as I've observed otherwise.

WRT Disbeliever's comment, it was directed to Jonalogic's comment of the Esoteric which was inappropriate for this thread.

Regarding the player production comment, Linn stopped production of disc-spinners a few years ago; TOO early in my opinion, and I bet they're regretting ceasing production so early as the physical medium market isn't dead - yet! But as to the other manufacturer's, it is very interesting that Sony, the co-inventor of SACD have just released a couple of DSD-enabled streamers, but NO new SACD players...

Disbeliever's comment was inappropriate, as the thread is concerned with the difference between different media, and NOT with subjective opinions on the sound of different players/sources. The are plenty of other threads for that.
And the comment concerning the Esotetic by Jonalogic was not IMO inappropriate because the K-03 is an all-in-one SACD/DAC, and is one of the few sources where a TRUE comparison between the FLAC and SACD versions of the same recording can be realised, without using different electronics/digital-to-analogue decoding methods for each.

Post by kelly200269 March 28, 2014 (25 of 39)
tailspn said:

Add to that the costs of designing and opening a new download site, complete with order processing, file download management, server costs, and at least two people full-time to manage and run it, and you're facing a cool $100,000 upfront facilities investment, and another $70,000 a year expense line. How many $25 - $30 sales does it take to break even? I can tell you their not there yet, not by a long shot.

iTunes killed the CD by offering the same music more conveniently, and more importantly cheaper. When iTunes first started selling AAC downloads, CD's were still more expensive. For most non-audiophiles at that time, AAC downloads were a no-brainer.

It is different with FLAC/DSD downloads today. They are roughly 40-60% more expensive than the SACD (IF it's available lol). And the SACD may also contain a M/C programme. Another no-brainer.

And as for the setup/ongoing revenue costs of download sites, do they expect us gullible early-adopters to absorb their initial costs? Why should they? Apple certainly didn't expect that with iTunes. They were after market-domination by sensible pricing and a quality product - and they got it.

Example: The new Yuja Wang version of Rach's 3rd is £8 on iTunes and £18 on Linn. It is NOT, no matter what financial models are used, over twice as much for a seller/provider to sell a FLAC version of a file as it is an MP3/AAC version. The shorthand is: We're being ripped off! :(

Post by AmonRa March 28, 2014 (26 of 39)
Funny thing is that the highest resolution files should be the cheapest, as they are the original masters. Making down sampled files in CD or mp3 quality costs more.

Post by tailspn March 28, 2014 (27 of 39)
kelly200269 said:
And as for the setup/ongoing revenue costs of download sites, do they expect us gullible early-adopters to absorb their initial costs?

Sure, they're tiny businesses compared to an Apple. You think a three year pay-back is reasonable?

My suggestion, since SACD's are a greater value to you, is keep buying them , and ignore high resolution music downloads. They're primarily available for a different interest group anyway, namely computer audio.

Post by tailspn March 28, 2014 (28 of 39)
AmonRa said:

Funny thing is that the highest resolution files should be the cheapest, as they are the original masters. Making down sampled files in CD or mp3 quality costs more.

By that logic, the original multi-track unedited session files should go for a pittance. Since I have both a multi-track Sonoma and Pyramix and can mount them, would you sell me yours for say, less than CD price?

Post by kelly200269 March 28, 2014 (29 of 39)
tailspn said:

Sure, they're tiny businesses compared to an Apple. You think a three year pay-back is reasonable?

My suggestion, since SACD's are a greater value to you, is keep buying them , and ignore high resolution music downloads. They're primarily available for a different interest group anyway, namely computer audio.

The size of the business is, frankly, irrelevant. ANY business that starts up with a new product realises that there will always be financial risk involved. And if they've got a good product, they will survive and flourish. It's the basic law of capitalistic business.
As for 'pay-back', are you suggesting that after all the early-adopters have been fleeced to cover their start-up costs, that the cost of the product (in this case digital downloads) will drop? Of course it won't! IF they can continue charging exorbitant prices for the product AND people continuing paying it, then the price will remain inflated. It's the second law of capitalistic business ;-) lol

And as for high resolution music downloads being primarily for computer audio freeks, I disagree. Streamers and DAC's are there for the mainstream market, and you don't need a PC to listen to HiRez audio. And anyway, when SACD ceases production it will be the ONLY way we will be able to listen to HiRez music.

I just want us to be charged a fair price for a good product, rather than being ripped-off.

Post by kelly200269 March 28, 2014 (30 of 39)
tailspn said:

By that logic, the original multi-track unedited session files should go for a pittance. Since I have both a multi-track Sonoma and Pyramix and can mount them, would you sell me yours for say, less than CD price?

No, because the multi-track, unedited session files are not a finished product! lol

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 next

Closed