QQ Survey Time!

[Mr. Afternoon]

I wonder why Dutton Vocalion keeps releasing SACDs instead of Blu-ray Audio. I really miss DVD-A.

To put it simply, there's much more of an SACD userbase than Blu-ray Audio and DVD-Audio users. Blu-ray Audio never took off and DVD-Audio is dead.

 

[kfbkfb]

AFAIK, Blu-ray audio (only) is just a subset of Blu-ray, Blu-ray audio offers DTS, DD, TrueHD[w/ATMOS].

It seems to me that Blu-ray audio offers many more options and the audio can be duplicated in DD, DTS for compatibility with older surround sound systems.


Kirk Bayne

 

[Ranasakawa]

As long as the Bluray is made well and doesn't fail after a few years and the audio tracks are available via FLAC

 

[~dave~~wave~]

I wonder why Dutton Vocalion keeps releasing SACDs...

Because his wife, family, friends & neighbors, like mine, only listen to CDs?
Hybrid multichannel SACDs are the greatest thing since sliced bread when faced with that reality.

 

[Old Quad Guy]

These type of polls are useful in a general way. But, more of a Rorschach test of peoples preferences of formats.

As surround sound enthusiasts, we have to take whatever format is offered and like it. I’m fine with whatever people like, or don’t like.

Generally, because there’s a CD layer, anyone can play SACD, at least in CD quality in stereo. Blu-ray might be more common, because of AV home theaters. I wouldn’t give up completely on DVD-Audio: a lot of us here can author DVD-A discs. And for the smaller artist, DVD-A might be chapter to do short runs than the cost of doing Blu-ray. Not sure about the manufacturing price difference.

So, the question I’d like to know is, how much does it cost to manufacture a SACD? No one, and I mean no one has ever answered this question.

What’s the different in manufacturing costs between doing DVD-A and Blu-ray? If the cost is about the same, and CDs add an extra expense, maybe BR, with CD quality Flac for download with purchase might be the best option from the Artist viewpoint.

But, if the cost of adding CD isn’t too much, you might get more buyers of a title. Even though it’s simple for us to burn a CD, not everyone can or wants to do this. I have friends who are still very much into CDs, and either don’t have the equipment or want to hassle with burning one.

In the end, it depends on your target audience, manufacturing costs, and if you want to reach the maximum amount of music fans or not.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

So, the question I’d like to know is, how much does it cost to manufacture a SACD? No one, and I mean no one has ever answered this question.

Manufacturers don't let you share this info.

What’s the different in manufacturing costs between doing DVD-A and Blu-ray?

There's two problems:
1. Blu-ray is more expensive because of licensing costs.
2. Good luck finding a manufacturer who can press CPPM protected content, which newer players require to play DVD-Audio.

 

[musicmemorabiliashoppellc]

Manufacturers don't let you share this info.


There's two problems:
1. Blu-ray is more expensive because of licensing costs.
2. Good luck finding a manufacturer who can press CPPM protected content, which newer players require to play DVD-Audio.

Well for one the initial cost for the pressing machines must be ENORMOUS and to keep a place that clean so that nothing ruins the discs being pressed adds to that.

It would take years to make your costs back just to break even so, with that being said just the cost of the discs themselves and packaging is MINNESCULE.

 

[Genious]

2 CDs and I throw away the BluRay.

The thing I hate more than anything else is making a format obsolete so you have to buy the recording again.

They obsoleted VHS to sell DVD and now they are obsoleting DVD to sell BluRay. I don't need the meager improvement in "quality" enough to add another format.

I was thinking about this just today while contemplating buying the latest version of Harold and Maude (which I decided against). They find new ways to imply that movies have been redone/remastered/etc. so that the picture quality is even better than the past 17 versions that have been put out but the thing is, the movies are so old that the audience for them, namely me, are older... which means our eyesight isn't exactly 20-20 so in reality, am I really going to appreciate a grainy movie shot in 1970 in 4K? Hell, will I even be able to see the difference?

 

[jaybird100]

I wonder why Dutton Vocalion keeps releasing SACDs instead of Blu-ray Audio. I really miss DVD-A.

Hybrid SACD's can be played on pretty much any red-book CD player, in stereo. DV know that, so their continuing to support that format makes perfect sense.

 

[Wagonmaster_91]

Of the 3 choices I vote for standard blu-ray. Multiple Hi-def audio options possible, the audio can be ripped and downsampled if I need a CD version for the car plus you can also get some video or at least an on screen menu of video is usually more elaborate than an SACD.

Sorry to go off topic but: On the subject of "obsolete" formats, if I own a large collection of the software - R2R, cassette, vinyl (before the new resurgence), etc. - if my current player is aging, I will try to buy a new or excellent condition used "the top of the line model" of that hardware so I will still be able to play my collection for many years. One of the benefits is that if a format is close to the end of its life cycle I can usually find a great deal on a piece that had previously cost hundreds of dollars more. "This is the last CD player, R2R, turntable I will ever buy." I bought my Oppo two weeks before they announced they were no longer going to manufacture them. Whew!

 

[JohnG]

Love a stand-alone Blu Ra.

 

[MidiMagic]

So you if you don't want blu-ray, dvd-a or sacd, how do you listen to multi-channel mixes? Or do you not care about multi-channel either?

BTW, I can agree that the improvement gained from a new format is sometimes meager, but the jump in quality from VHS to DVD was huge in both convenience (no rewinding needed) and the image produced.

I want as few formats as possible so my collection is not divided between formats. I hate having to not be able to play a recording on a changer because it is in an incompatible format. That's why I was upset when they quit making records.

I like QS and Dolby Surround. I shudder every time I listen to a discrete recording and the sound cogs from speaker to speaker when a sound pans. Dolby Surround fixed that. Discrete broke it again.

What I think of is all of the money I spent on music and movies I bought on cassettes and VHS that I can't play now. All of my players died, and nobody makes a quality one anymore. So all of that money is wasted.

I am on a fixed income. I don't have the money to spend on multiple formats and multiple expensive players. I am hoping that someday I can afford a Surround Master.

 

[Sonik Wiz]

I'm gonna finally vote in favor of a single Blu-Rei:

Why mess with more than one disc when it can go all on one? What good would CD's do when most can't play them in the car anymore? But you could rip from BR if needed. Great audio quality and most flexibility. I see the poll is leaning heavily this way.

 

[tonyE]

2 CDs and I throw away the BluRay.

The thing I hate more than anything else is making a format obsolete so you have to buy the recording again.

They obsoleted VHS to sell DVD and now they are obsoleting DVD to sell BluRay. I don't need the meager improvement in "quality" enough to add another format.

I have winnowed down to 3 formats: Vinyl, CD, and DVD. I have lost all players for the other formats I had through attrition with no replacements on the market. I have had these other formats: 2-track stereo reel, 4-track stereo reel, 8-track cartridge, cassette, and VHS. And the tape format recordings failed as well as the players.

Elcaset and DV Video?

 

[Old Quad Guy]

Elcaset and DV Video?

Maybe. Some of the old Car systems would play DVD-V in surround for movies and music, as I understood it. The Sony Mex-DV2000:
https://www.sonicelectronix.com/item-9740-Sony-MEX-DV2000.html
Blu-Ray with a Hi-Rez Flac download, or Hi-Rez Flac with SACD purchase, would give folks CD burning ability or USB playback, without the hassle of ripping any discs. And the discs are good for those who only use physical media.

 

[JediJoker]

I like CDs. I still buy them. A Blu-ray is more versatile, compatible, and easier to rip than an SACD. 2CD/1BR for me.

 

[fcormier]

Manufacturers don't let you share this info.


There's two problems:
1. Blu-ray is more expensive because of licensing costs.
2. Good luck finding a manufacturer who can press CPPM protected content, which newer players require to play DVD-Audio.

1. This is why Bruce Soord released is second solo album on DVD rather than on Blu-ray like The Pineapple Thief's albums
2. Giancarlo Erra from @nosound released his second solo album on DVD-A last year, he is releasing one this year with Tim Bowness this year and he seems to have found a manufacturer for his discs.

 

[dadregga]

To put it simply, there's much more of an SACD userbase than Blu-ray Audio and DVD-Audio users. Blu-ray Audio never took off and DVD-Audio is dead.

My hunch is that SACDs stick around because most people that spend extra money to buy physical "audiophile discs" are older, have hardware supporting older formats, and expect to be able to stick a disc into a $6,000 player in their listening room and have it start playing - and probably aren't terribly interested in figuring out how to rip a Bluray.

 

[ar surround]

...most people that spend extra money to buy physical "audiophile discs" are older...

I wonder what the age demographic is for this forum. I'll bet it skews way "up there."

 

[J. PUPSTER]

I wonder what the age demographic is for this forum. I'll bet it skews way "up there."

It’s statistically called the Metamucil Mode