Sony Music... did they just give up on SACD?

I haven't found anything new by Sony on SACD...

 

Good question. On the hardware side of Sony, by now I would have expected a car and some new home products. On the music side I would have expected to see some clear game plan; but noooooooo.

Richard.

 

Sure seems that way...

 

IIRC, last gasp was John Mayer and Indigo Girls and Incubus.......David Sanchez I think. Aerosmith Rocks was announced but seems to have been forgotten...

 

Yep.

Incubus, Indigo Girls and David Sanchez (excellent record, by the way) - August 3.

John Mayer - August 17.

Since then the only real news has been them trying to move the back catalogue at discount prices out of the Sony store. It's annoying.

I'm hopeful that they'll be back in the saddle in the new year.

 

And this is why I recently went to the nearest big blue consumer products store to scoop up those Sony single layers from a few years back.

 

Besides the Bob Dylan stuff, they never did do much but tease the market. From the start it seemed that they did whatever it took to minimize success, as we consumers would view it anyways. Exorbitant player prices, stereo only, way high disc prices, D-M-R, all those single-layer discs, and Sony Music's on-going nonsuppourt mode. Sometimes I think the plot line is a lot like THE PRODUCERS's (film/play) design for failure. It sure can seem that way....

 

I agree, Rachel. I can't imagine why they developed a hybrid disc, only to release single layer albums. I don't get it.

I feel like I did when I was the only kid on the block with a Betamax

 

Wasn't Betamax more popular in Mexico than in the USA, or did Beta just last longer there?

 

Beta was waaaay more popular than VHS in the beginning. Practically nobody owned VHS.

That was for a time. Then, Beta suddenly disappeared. Just like that.

Actually, my grandparents still have their Beta VCR's. They never switched to VHS.

 

I'm sorry Rachael, I don't read it that way at all.

I've been with them from the start and they seemed like my friend, not my enemy.

"Exorbitant player prices". But what about the Philips when it first came out? - listed at $2000. All the first players were dear. Sony's initial prices on items like the 555 and 333 were a little high, but they realized that and dropped the prices drastically. I paid $300 for my SCD-C333ES at Good Guys. The statement piece - the SCD-1 - was undervalued. They'll never make a profit there - and did not intend to.

I love stereo - and I love non-hybrids; and Sony had both of those. Things could have rolled much faster without the desire for hybrids, and the war over double and triple royalties would not have happened if it were not for hybrids. Hybrids seduced us with the offer of compatibility, but at what cost. It would have worked if the single catalogue approach had been accepted by the majors, but they did not buy it. Sony Music made the mistake of not opening the floodgates with non-hybrids from their top selling artists - the scatter gun approach was wrong. They needed to focus and provide depth. If they had released all new music on CD and non-hybrid SACD at the same time, they would have achieved critical mass.

D-M-R: what are you referring to?

Their disc prices were not high - were you buying SACDs in the very early days? Sony was the cheapest by a long way. Telarcs, dmps, FIM etc were $25, and Sony was $18. If you mark your involvement as coincident with the Dylan releases, I kind of follow - but there was a significant period before that to which your comments don't really apply.

We cannot undervalue the significant support Sony gave to all those labels who wanted to take advantage of getting 5 SACD releases done for virtually free. Sure they had a game plan, but they put some weight behind it.

The last point I'll certainly give you - "Sony Music's on-going nonsuppourt mode". A recent move. I do feel that things have changed lately, and Sony Music have not been at the forefront - where they were before. They have let the baton pass to Universal; which was a foolish move on their part.

We do have to separate Sony and Sony Music - they don't pull their oars together, which is unfortunate and will cost them.

 

I really wish Sony would have stayed the course. They seem to have been thrown off track by the "publisher" issue (as was WB with DVD-A). They did, however, provide a strong "incentive" to get UMG to output what they have, and you have to admit that UMG has done a great job with old and new titles stretching across many types of music.

It would have been nice if Sony manufactured an SACD player for the car, or even a Universal player. I mean, Sony began making VHS machines well before the demise of Beta.

You have to give them credit for what they started, it's just that the last year has been kinda sparse (Of course, not counting the thousands of SACDs available from overseas).

The lack of the second Dylan box was a bad sign, esp since they advertised it.

 

yes they did.

 

Does anyone know if that Rolling Stone 500 hybrid disc had any kind of positive impact on SACD sales?

 

Technically, VHS was an inferior product. VHS (JVC) beat Beta (Sony) with marketing. I can't tell you how many times I overheard a store clerk tell a customer something along the lines of, "...With VHS, you can record 6 hours on a single tape. You can only record 4 1/2 hours on a Beta tape." The fact that your average 6 hour VHS recording was all but unwatchable did not prove to be an issue an issue with the consuming public.

 

Steve, I am a bit confused. Are you saying that the long ago announced (by Sony) BS&T Child Is Father to the Man SACD was to have been a DCC release, or, that DCC was producing it for Sony to distribute on the Sony label? Did you work at all on any of these unreleased titles?

 

IMO, I'd never start a format, even just for the first year, where the cheapest player was $3500. I didn't get into SACD till I was able to get the DVP-S9000ES for some les than a grand. The SCD-C555ES originally listed for $1700, two large price decreases I finally got one. I think, Sony thinks, that the U.S. should have an abundant number of "early adopters" to lauch stuff on, and, willing to pay $1000-$2000 for just about anything they invent like it is for them in Japan. I think this model doesn't work for them too well here. They have other issues, of course.

I wouldn't runs ads in Stereo Review touting hybrid discs and then take years to ever release one, Heart's Live, finally. The high prices on their 2 discs sets was annoying, just 2X, basically and single-layer to boot. Even when they lowered prices most B & M reailers didn't. Another thing, and this goes for DVD-A/Dual-y Disc too, is predatory marketing. All the better formats are undercut by predatory, cheaper CD or DVD-V releases. Huge price premiums guarantee CD's and DVD-D's will kick butt, IMO.

I remember the $25 dollar discs. I bought some back then just in case the format didn't get far, like, I couldn't possibly ever of been happy had I not owned Manfredo Fest's JUST JOBIM! No way!...or, a couple of the other AUDIoQuest and DMP stuff, stille No way! So, I know. All SA-CD prices are too high across the board, then, and now IMO. Most of those $25 discs are stille $20....too high, MoFi and Groove Note are stille $25, too high, like a psychedelic four-eyed Stevie Wonder song...too high!

I remember my first my first $25 hybrid, BluesQuest Sampler. I heard it on an SCD-777ES at a home theatre meet. Dude had a nice stereo too! I'd had my 9000ES, not that long. Manfredo Fest came soon thereafter when I found out about it's release. It's stille one of my favourite discs.

D-R-M = digital rights management, the little reason all DVD-A and SACD players have the silly analog outputs, oh how 20th century!

The dogged determination to sell single-layer discs stille lingers! That locked them out of many retailers. Retailers had so many returned by clueless customers, who proably became agrivated customers. Single-layered-ness ruined chances for widespread retail suppourt, outstanding idea watson, old chap!

You make a good point about Sony's helping other labels wet their feet in the SA-CD market! That river must be dry though....? Labels like Rounder, DMP, Sugar Hill, and others have faded away...seemingly, SACD-wise.

I'm a bit of a cynic about the big 4, well a little cynical, It's not like I'm the Spanish Inquesistion, well, yes it is. I'm very cynical of the big 4's motives, Sony's, same as the others. I'm sick of the Sony vs. Warner fued too. When I look at Sony's effort, I seen so little effort to accomodate consumers or retailers desires. Their marketing schemes haven't seemed to compute...to me...

 

Sony is now selling CD/DVD/SACD players with encrypted high-definition digital audio/video output (HDMI). But of course, it doesn't support SACD...

 

Telarc still seems to be issuing SACD's, but it seems their announced titles for 2005 doesn't SEEM high.

You don't hear much out of Abcko- but at least they had two decent re-issues(Animals and Hermans Hermits).

Our saviour- at least in the short term should be Universal. They have announce intentions to do 150 titles in 2005. Long rumored speculation is that of those 150- we should see the Moodies and Steely Dan, and even more Elton John.

At the retail CHANNEL level- SACD has a loooonngg way to go! Most retail employees(big box stores or music chains) don't have the foggiest notion what an SACD or DVD-A is(except that it MIGHT be in a strange looking case). In the case of Hybrids- unless the previous retail release is pulled(redbook only) andthe SACD hybrid takes the place of any other retail piece out there- then SACD is doomed for failure. When John or Joan Q Public has no clue about the difference- they will automatically buy the $10 or $12 redbook version rather than the $16 to $18 SACD hybrid.

Chris

 

Telarc

For audiophile or classical labels, SACD is the obvious choice in my view, because the buyers are aware of the advantages of high rez (or multichannel), and are ready to pay full price ($20 and more) for an SACD, whereas it becomes increasingly difficult to sell a regular CD at that price, because of the mid and low price competition (classical labels) or the fact that CD is no longer considered state of the art (audiophile labels).

 

The Animals and The Herman's Hermits SACD suck. They sound terrible and rank up there with some of the worst sounding discs on any format that I have ever heard in my life, and I am 47.

 

Georgie H. was right - all things must pass...

 

HDMI outputs do support SACD/DSD data. All you need is an HDMI input on your TV or receiver to get the data and a chip set to convert the data. That I have not seen yet.

Richard.