SACD hybrids bad policy from Sony/Columbia?

We talk a lot about the relative sonic qualities of SACD and DVD-A. My take on this is that either one can deliver good recording and mastering techniques, and neither can redeem inept work.

However, in addition to sonic quality, one should consider the development potential of the protocol, and here DVD-A excels. For example, DVD can be 196KHz stereo, or 96 KHz multichannel. European producers are releasing multichannel programs with different channel utilization and loudspeaker positioning (2+2+2 instead of 5.1). I think I heard of discs that allowed the user to select a "listener perspective" (back row, front row, onstage) via selection of mixdown coefficients on the disk. The limited video is really nice, for program notes (that are usually printed in a tiny unreadable font) and selection of cuts.

On the other hand I think that Sony has really tied the hands of users of their SACD protocol.

I always thought that audiophiles were chronic tweekers. DVD-A is made for tweeking, SACD is not.

Mr. Campbell, perhaps you should write this down so you don't misquote me every time this debate pops up. I wrote that on *ONE* of my SACD's, The Rolling Stones' Let it Bleed, I prefer the MIXES on some of the CD tracks, but the SACD layer has better SONICS. So, even on THAT hybrid, the superiority of the SACD FORMAT is demonstrated. So, now I have over 100 SACD's and
on ONE of them, I prefer the MIX on a few of the CD tracks. Further, I do appreciate the trojan horse strategy. These hybrid SACD releases have been successful. ANYTHING that puts MORE SACD's in the marketplace so I can get my hot little hands on them. As to me taking your comments as a dig at SACD -- LOL. Bad guess. Try to stay on topic this time.

Does anyone know the relative cost of manufacturing hybrid disks vs. redbook-only disks? That seems to only possible factor in this decsion, which I agree with Ben is mighty odd and quite disappointing.

Rsbeck ok,chill sir.

I'll take your word for the different mix on the layer,I haven't heard a different mix on any layer of the twenty or so SACD hybrids I own but I could be wrong and I see no point in digging out the disc to get caught in a petty debate.

I take your point on SACD superiority over the 100 discs.

I think I started this thread and it wasn't me who strayed off topic,most of the responses do that but I've long given up on the defensive stances of those who see no flaws in how SACD is developing so I hardly expect them to deal with my main point.

Well, they have to do something and hybrid "trojans" might help the numbers. As much as SACD (or DVD-A) shine when critical listening is involved, the real critical part is market share & profit. Walk into a Tower Rcds or whatever, check out the # of CDs displayed vs SACD/DVD-A, and no matter how much any of us appreciate MC audio - if they ain't movin' the numbers then sumpthin's gotta give. With overall RIAA sales tanking (due more to content offering & quality than copying, in my $.02) you'd think that anything that boosts actual sales would be good. That's probably what leads them to think that hybrids are good, 'cause who copies SACDs? Bottom line is that pure SACDs are a tiny tiny part of the overall CD sales, so anything that makes them more likely to sell will be used.