Don Satz responds to me:
>>Nobody is going to get filthy rich off of SACD equipment sales at $10-30
>>of profit per unit.
>
>I'm not sure about that. If and when many millions of folks switch
>from standard CD players to SACD players, there will be plenty of bucks
>changing hands.
I'll try and keep this real simple. It's highly unlikely that selling
new SACD players to people with CD players now is even part of the profit
model in the SACD business plan for a company like Sony, for example.
This just isn't part of the equation when introducing a new technology
like this. If international trade agreements allowed it, they would
likely sell players below their cost. The real potential money that
is to be made, and it is in the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars
range, is in the media that you sell to be played on this equipment.
They want us to replace our CD collections with SACDs, pure and simple.
It would not be at all surprising to find that all the money Sony makes
off of SACD technology that goes into equipment never even recoups their
initial investment in development itself. What makes money - lots of
it they hope - is the direct media sales and the licensing of the format.
Having written just such business plans I could go into great detail,
but that would be well beyond the scope of this list.
Larry Sherwood responds to me:
>>With prices of superb SACD players in the $150 range ...
>
>I find myself suspicious of that there are superb- or even very good-
>SACD players for that price.
OK, I have to admit that "superb" seems like hyperbole to me too. But
very good seems about right. I'll stand by that.
>Perhaps Dave would care to specify make and model of such devices?
Though I doubt that such an exercise has even the slightest chance to
change Larry's opinion, here goes. Several players I've read about and
heard recently are getting lots of attention in the press, even from
high end publications such as Perfect Vision, the sister publication to
The Absolute Sound. For example, included as recommended components in
systems in the $3K to $6K range are:
At an MSRP of $250, Sony DVP-NC685V 5-disc changer available at Amazon
for $190:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000CD9TA/classicalnetA/
The $199 MSRP Pioneer DV-563A can be had a variety of places for $149,
including:
http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/productdetail.asp?sku=PIODV578
Granted the Pioneer has less than stellar DVD-Video playback quality,
but it plays both SACDs and DVD-Audio discs quite impressively.
I recently heard the Telarc SACD of Mahler's 5th by Zander and the
Philharmonia on this player in a surround system that was probably about
$5K and it was sim0ply stunning.
But Sony is about to release their much anticipated next generation of
players this month. You can read a little about them here:
$150 MSRP single disc Sony DVP-NS775V can be pre-ordered from
Amazon for $117:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0002KQR1E/classicalnetA/
$180 MSRP 5-disc carousel Sony DVP-NS875V can be pre-ordered
for $135:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0002KQR1Y/classicalnetA/
I have a 7-disc JVC player that goes a terrific job with DVD-Audio discs.
It lists for $299, but I found it for $149 at a local Circuit City.
>It is frequently the case that the final incarnations of an old technology
>are superior to that of the early incarnations of a new technology, and
>I think (based on product reviews) that there are CD players that provide
>sound superior to that of most SACD players.
SACD is at this point a very mature technology. And of course there
are $5000 (or even $15,000) CD players that may outperform a lousy cheap
SACD player. But I don't really see much utility in such a comparison.
>I've heard SACD only once, but I have it by people I consider authoritative
>that many SACD releases are no better than Redbook (i.e. plain old
>ordinary) CDs.
I've read perhaps 400-500 SACD reviews over the last few years and
have yet to see anyone put such an assertion in print. There have been
criticisms of the multi-channel mixes, placement of voices and instruments
for example, but no one I've encountered in the more mainstream press
or in the high end magazines has ever observed this. If you have some
references, I'd love to check them out.
Karl Miller wrote:
>When I record something at 96,000 samples per second, I can hear the
difference versus 44,100 sample per second. It just isn't those isolated
high pitches, but there is an added clarity in the inner voices. The
higher bit definition gives me more realistic dynamics.
A lot of people, including many experienced recording and mastering
engineers agree with Karl. In my last techie note for this session let
me say that I believe there may be some emerging consensus that once you
get past 88,000 samples per second or so the real advantage is in the
increased word length (i.e., 24 bits per sample vs the 16 bits used on
CD) that 24/96 offers over 16/44. This can be demonstrated with DVD-Audio
where there doesn't seem to be a lot of advantage of 24/192 over 24/96,
for example.
In conclusion I should say that if you are happy wiht your CD collection,
and I'm certainly happy with mine, and don't see much need to go further,
then there's really no reason to check out the high resolution formats.
As it stands now it doesn't appear that most of what we have in our
collections (heck, 90%+ of what we have) will ever make it to SACD or
DVD-A. But, if you haven't been able to tell by now, I love many of the
surround recordings I've heard, and I love that I have high resolution
recordings available to me to push the limits of my home system. You
mileage my vary.
A special thanks to Karl for keeping his posts about classical music.
Dave
|
