Bad News For Hi-Rez Music

I'm with LeeS on this one!

Those interested in the cheapo bottom of the line players are [IN GENERAL] NOT going to have receivers with 5.1 analog inputs, and are NOT going to be searching the internet for HiRez software anyway.

Those who seek out HiRez will seek out higher end players. I think we can safely assume that HiRez is never going to replace the standard CD/MP3 format, so what's the problem. Denon is being cost effective.

Now, if software was falling out of the shelves, that would be a different story, but as I have said in this post earlier, this is not something that Denon should be chided for.

 

There's a study in Amazon (link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...002-3847958-8273619?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) that talks about the future of SA-CD and DVD-Audio. Here's a quote from the Amazon page:

"This study presents a forecast and analysis of the worldwide and U.S. DVD-Audio and SACD multichannel audio device market. It includes unit shipment and revenue forecasts for home and portable devices (combined) and automotive consumer electronics device form factors. Portable devices included in this forecast are portable DVD players equipped with multichannel audio support. This forecast does not consider A/V receivers or PC technologies that support multichannel audio formats. The multichannel audio hardware market is still in the early stages of development, and we estimate that total worldwide unit shipments of multichannel audio hardware will grow from 1.6 million in 2002 to 19.9 million in 2007. The study has two central sections. The Situation Overview section reviews current market trends and examines recent developments in the market. The Future Outlook section outlines IDC's assumptions about market trends during the forecast period and presents forecast data and analysis for the 2002 through 2007 period. "Music labels and consumer electronics manufacturers face daunting hurdles to mass-market consumer adoption of multichannel audio formats, including the availability of two competing standards, a lack of DVD-A and SACD music content compared to CD and compressed audio, and consumer perception that CD and other two-channel music formats already meet their music needs. Integrating DVD-A and SACD into DVD-Video devices of all form factors is a primary way to surmount those hurdles and move the multichannel audio hardware and software markets beyond audiophiles and early adopters and into the mass-market music consumer's lifestyle." Susan Kevorkian, senior analyst in IDC's Consumer Markets: Audio program"

This process is what will fail if Denon and the others drop their low-end players.

 

Agreed. I don't see Denon's decision to be any problem...and good, mid-priced players should be out there for years to come. Pioneer, which led the way in LD, is the kind of company that should remain solid toward universal players.

All we need are labels willing to put out more stuff!

 

Thagt report looks like the typical "hockey stick" forecast we used to get from Gartner and Jupiter in the late 90s during the Internet bubble. Color me skeptical. I'm happy to live with fewer but more loyal and knowledgeable hirez fans.

Ed, nice Buffy pic.

 

It seems that Denon's "entry level" players are products for which there isn't much of a market to begin with. I can buy a progressive scan dvd player to watch movies (the reason most people buy one to begin with) for less than $50 within a 5 block radius of my house. I have no doubt that most dvd players are purchased at places like Target, Wal Mart, Best Buy, etc. These aren't places that the typical audiophile shops for equipment. I don't know anyone willing to spend $100 to $200 for a dvd player. They will either spend under $100 or over $200. Marketing hi-rez players to the under $200 crowd is a pretty small segment. Those who are interested in hi-rez probably already know about it and are willing to spend the money to get it. Most of the affordable universal players (like the Pioneer) don't work correctly half of the time anyway. If Denon isn't making money on low end hi-rez players, why should they make them?

 

Lee, I agree with much of what you say, but I think we are talking apples and oranges here. If I look at things from your point of view, which is quite close to my personal one, I agree with you. Yet, I believe that the popularization of HiRes is important for us all: we'll get more titles, more and better players at better prices and everybody will be happy.

Of course, us HiRes lovers can always go up to our own niche Shangri-La, were all seems to be quite OK and tell ourselves that if the general public is not into HiRes that's their problem (or was it the record companies and hardware manufacturer's one?).

In any case, time will tell what will happen with all this. I posted my concern because I got word from another hardware manufacturer some time ago that they were going to pull the plug on at least one HiRes format by 2006. Suddenly, I read this news from Denon and it rang a bell and I connected the dots, that's all. Again, let's see what happens. Time will tell and hindsight is always 20-20.

Yet, you can be sure that if the only available HiRes players in the future are in the mid-to-expensive range, and there is a company precedent now that point in that direction, disc releases will surely slow down or at least not pick up like we all would want. Just ask the people who are waiting for HiRes from the Beatles, Springsteen, King Crimson or Jackson Browne.

Whatever grassroots buzz has been generated in the last months regarding HiRes has been due to the availability of budget players like the Pioneer 563 (glitches aside). That has made many hear - if not in a totally faithful manner - what HiRes and its multichannel option is all about. I am sure that is the reason why we are seeing more day-and-date releases.

I agree with those who have said that it makes sense that if Denon is not making any money out of those players they take them off the market. What if the record companies all thought that way? Especially taking into consideration that, although several hardware manufacturers jumped into low-end HiRes players, if they walk out of them after a short time - which I believe to be the case - it means that they see no significant expansion of HiRes anytime soon.

In any case, Lee, if you want we can now move on beyond this world's limitations and problems and dedicate our time to more constructive pursuits such as listening and enjoying our loved HiRes titles. Que sera, sera.

 

That may be a shame in your opinion, but if you look at it from a rational perspective, then you have to admit that, all in all, hi-res formats offer no benefit to most customers, apart from the surround sound option. And even that is available with regular DVD-V also.

Advantages of SACD and DVD-A over CD:
1. It may sound a little better, but in a subtle way; only to a degree that most people can't perceive, or don't care about

Disadvantages of SACD and DVD-A:
1. Less usable due to digital copy protection

If you subtract the disadvantages from the advantages, then the result is a zero. That's why these formats are being ignored. I even dare saying that the result is negative, because the usability issue is much bigger for the average user than the sound quality point. In fact, the hi-res formats make it much harder to compile stuff for the car, jogging, party etc. People care about that.


The same comparison resulted in a big plus, back when LP was replaced by CD:

Advantages of CDs over LPs:
1. Less noise
2. Less delicate
3. Much smaller and more convenient to handle
4. Allows for portable playback gear
5. Much better sound quality using average playback gear
6. No wear

Disadvantages of CDs:
1. Smaller cover artwork

Now that's 6:1 for CDs vs. LPs. That's why CD was adopted so quickly. And these points were obvious, rather than subtle.

 

99 out of 100 bootleggers prefer CD!

 

Yes, but your points are addressed by the hybrid SACD:


Advantages of hybrid SACD over CD:

1. "It may sound a little better, but in a subtle way; only to a degree that most people can't perceive, or don't care about"
2. Capable of 5.1 surround


Disadvantages of a hybrid SACD:

none


So, if the record companies had replaced their inventory with hybrid discs at no extra cost to the consumer we would have had the opportunity to enjoy the sonic benefits of hi-res and/or 5.1 surround if we had wanted to. What was in it for the record companies? They would have had an opportunity to repackage their back catalogues once again but this time offering the consumer something worthwhile thus boosting sales.

Instead, the record companies released hybrids in dribs and drabs (SONY hardly bothered with hybrids at all ) and priced them higher than the equivalent CD only inventory that they kept in production.

Whoever these companies had in their marketing teams either didn't want SACD to succeed or were incredibly stupid. I am still trying to decide which is the more likely explanation......

 

Somehow I knew that someone would respond to me mentioning the hybrid SACD. This is not a fully valid response, because the CD content of the hybrid is not hi-res. The hi-res content is not fully usable because it is copy protected. Only the regular content is accessible. We were comparing hi-res formats with CD, a hybrid is a hi-res combined with a CD...

So the hybrid SACD is a product which has no benefit for the average user. And what is in your opinion the incentive that record companies have to produce expensive hybrid SACDs with extra content that the average user does not care about?

In fact, the 5.1 surround option is not usable to most customers, because the vast majority of people with surround setups at their home have DVD players and surround receivers for surround. Not usable for SACD-Surround, only usable for DVD-Surround in Dolby Digital or DTS. No score for SACD.

 

I sneakily edited my post in anticpation of this question!

As I alluded to in the addition to my previous post, the incentive is increased sales and increased customer loyalty.

By actually offering something new and improved with a hybrid SACD the re-release would be more than just a shameless money making scam. I believe that this would lead to increased sales compared to just another CD re-release.

Take the Stones discs - my guess is that they sold more copies due to the inclusion of the SACD layer than they would have had it just been a CD only release (yes, I know they don't indicate SACD anywhere on the packaging but many thoudsands of consumers would have been aware of this fact). I, for one, would not have bought any of the Stones re-issues were it not for the SACD layer. The same goes for the Dylan discs. I am not saying that the increase in sales was huge but I also don't think it was insignificant.

I re-iterate, hybrid SACD poses no disadvantage for the consumer if the manufacturer prices it competitively. Furthermore, the manufacturer faces no disadvantage due to increased sales. Everyone is happy.

What a shame the idiots in marketing had no idea what they were doing .

 

Wouldn't that be nice? But the SACD hybrid can't be priced the same as a regular CD at this time, unless the suppliers decrease their profit margin. The hybrid would only be a good choice for the supplier in the rare case where there is an audience interested in the SACD feature. This audience alone would have to increase sales by such a margin that the higher cost in preparation and manufacturing is compensated for, otherwise the supplier would lose money.

From the customer point of view, while the hybrid SACD provides no disadvantage, it also provides no advantage at all to most customers. The advantage that the hi-res formats DVD-A, SACD and SACD hybrid have to a few customers, is minimal compared to the advantages that CD had over LP in the perception of the vast majority of customers, so we have a clear explanation of why the hi-res formats are not adopted at the same speed as CD was adopted in the 80s.

 

I don't believe that manufacturing costs are significantly higher than for CD. Think about it - SACD is based on DVD technology. DVDs are manufactured in their millions - the manufacturing technology is in place at very low cost.

Hmmmm, I have neglected to mention the extra publishing overheads involved with SACD which, if we are to believe what we are told, pose a serious problem. This one factor may be the undoing of my otherwise perfect theory .

 

This is one of the strong reasons for budget universal players. Many people have started listening to DTS tracks because they found out they had the possibility. The same could happen with SA-CD and DVD-Audio, if given a chance.

Of course these players do not deliver audiophile quality (at least for now), but audiophiles will oftentimes be willing to pay more for more sophisticated machines, not the regular consumer. And, although budget universal players cannot stand up to high-end ones you surely can hear the difference between a CD, a DTS 5.1 track and a HiRes one in them. DTS tracks sound in general terms flatter than, for example, DVD-A or SA-CD ones.

 

Budget DVD-players can include DTS-out capability and receivers can include DTS decoding capability, and customers can find out that they have this capability and play the DTS track. That's fine.

Hi-Res is a completely different issue. Hi-res surround requires 5.1 channel analog outputs at the DVD Player. The main reason is that encryption is required by the industry for hi-res.

5.1 analog outs and full decoding and bass management capability are not feasible in a budget DVD player at this time. In addition, you need 5.1 analog inputs at the Surround receiver, and 6 cables in between... And then you have to understand that in order to listen to that content, you have to switch your receiver over to the 5.1 input rather than the DVD input. You also have to understand that your bass management has to be set up in the DVD player in addition to the receiver.

Of course interconnects like FireWire are a new option, but there is practically no gear available.

Hence, hi-res is not going to come to budget players any time soon, and people won't discover they have the capability until all DVD-players and surround receivers have new interfaces and people start using them.

 

Even if a standard hi-res digital link was agreed upon for both formats & budget players included them, how many manufacturers would include hi-res decoders in their receivers and processors? Not too many I'll bet. Not to mention the high-speed processor chips capable of full bass management that many people need.

All this is why I hope DTS Entertainment doesn't sell off their DTS-CD encoding/manufacturing equipment any time soon.

 

petzi, I agree with you that many people do not care about the sound improvement of SACD over CD, however, I think your points on the LP versus CD miss several points. I agree with your points 3 and 4, but I think the others need to be expanded to cover the real situation. LP's when clean are not noisy, CD's scratch just as easy as LP's, and wear on LP's can be kept to almost nothing if they are only played when they are clean. On point 5 the analog LP is the ultimate hi-rez system. If you could digitize at infinite speed and with an infinite number of bits you would have analog. You cannot do better then analog sound quality. There may be better media for analog sound than the LP (such as 30 ips RTR tape), but the LP does a very good job of analog sound. With respect to the disadvantages of the CD I think you should list that many suffer from severe compression.

 

Possibly. I'm getting lots of good titles now. Mainstream acceptance just seems beyond our reach given the poor marketing efforts of the labels.

Also, I wonder if moving from audiophile niche to mainstream would hurt sound quality. Indeed, I suspect it would as many big labels seem to almost discourage good recording practices (I'm basing this on coversations and work experience in the studio).

The best thing is just for SACD to slowly gain hold among more knowledgeable pop and rock artists so we can get more of those titles. There's plenty of jazz and classical and we are getting all-in around 80-100 new titles per month. That's pretty good for a niche.

One thing that would help would be the introduction of SACD players in cars like BMW, Lexus, etc. I know Lexus' audio division has discussed this a lot (I know some senior managers there) - they offer 24/96 in the GX.

 

Sorry Petzi, but I don't agree with you in this. Pioneer's budget models have bass management (although SA-CD is converted to PCM for it, as in high-end players) and also include the 5.1 analog outputs.

I agree.

Take a look at what Moura of High Fidelity Review mentions here about car players:
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=12377501

 

From Brian's article:

As to what's next, the Harman Infotainment rep told me that the car audio player at the show will indeed ship with both DTS 5.1 and DVD Audio playback. Turning to Super Audio CD Surround Sound, he indicated that work continues with Philips on that project with a car audio player featuring DTS, DVD Audio and Super Audio CD "around the next corner". Now that will be an interesting development to watch for.

The faster, the better. Get these players out there. I still think that the car will make or break these formats. It's where most people listen.

 

Yep.

The new Acura RL has a 5.1 dvd-audio system (after the animation loads, click "attraction" then "turn it up").

 

Thats why I think SACD will ultimately succeed. You can enjoy the hi-res at home, and the CD layer in the car. It does not cost any more to make SACD's than CD's.

 

I disagree. The difference in perceived sound quality in the car environment will be minimal. I don't believe the absence of an SACD player for the car is holding back sales by anything more than a tiny percentage.

 

I'm talking 5.1 here, that's the only thing that will allow these formats to survive. Whether we like it or not, 5.1 is in demand - SACD and DVD-A are NOT.

I, for one, would prefer having my 5.1 on SACD and DVD-A, not on some "DualDisc" in DD or even DTS.

 

Anyways guys, most of you think that mono sounds great, I think there should be some SACDs mono