The ignorance of SACD & DVD-A marketing idiots....


Let's see....how to make a new format fail...well:..

1. Make it cost more....so less people will buy the
discs....that way you won't be able to make up the R&D
in volume.

2. Make sure that it is either hard or costly for a
equipment manufacture to use the format in their gear.

3. And thank you DVD-A.....make the case a new/strange
size so that the case will not fit into most Buyer's
storage units/racks.

And please add any of your thoughts.... Am I unhappy with this all.....hell yes....both formats are better...and I have my favorite.... And thank you to the folks that developed these formats....but Sony and all you others...fire all of your marketing people...
whatjd
Sony, after creating SACD, follow by not making their own original Blue Ray players SACD compatible?
My Sony Blu-Ray does play SACD, both 2- and multi-channel, though there's nothing in the specs that states that. In the manual, it tells you to go to "Music Settings" and choose it, which I did and played an SACD only disc, no problem.

As far as the formats, DVD-A was flawed by having to have a monitor to easily navigate the disc. Didn't make sense at all.

I had read that one of the reasons for the failure of SACD was the cost, mandated by Sony having to pay three times the royalties, one time each for the CD layer, the 2-channel SACD layer, and the multi-channel SACD layer. Whether that is true or not, I don't know.

Having put out multi-format and single SACD discs, many people were afraid to buy SACD, having been warned SACD would not work on their CD player and the confusion of choosing the right discs.

Sony should have just made all the discs with SACD and put the capability in their players so there would be no confusion. Once people started to play Sony discs in Sony players, they would have realized how much better Sony stuff sounded.

Having said that, I'm not sure it matters anymore, since Hi-Res downloads are the future (or at least the next few years . . . who knows?).

In the meantime . . . vinyl, baby! Infinite sampling!
How about this: Distribute your SACDs to Best Buy, et.al., but don't bother to provide and PROMOTE an advertising/marketing/sales kit for store "managers" and department employees. This way, when the hapless, but cash-flush Audiogoner shows up (who, stupidly enough, is not downloading his MP3's for free from Napster) appears and asks, "Where do I find the SACDs, please?", he is greeted all 'round by slack-jawed, blank stares reminiscent of Gomer Pyle seconds before he utters one of those classic quips like "That don't seem [sound] right..."

IF, by chance, repeating the question in various simplistic, but hopefully instructive ways finally spurs some dawning (but still nebulous) relative awareness or recognition in one of the hipper employees, hapless AGer may be informed, "Oh, THOSE... Well, I think we have SOME mixed in with the rest of the CDs." There will not, of course, be a store inventory list. Happy hunting!
In my opinion, it was a real shame that Sony dropped the ball on so many fronts when it came to SACD.

Sony Music, a different division than the hardware end of the business, should have stopped stamping CDs altogether. Instead, EVERY disc they put out should have been hybrid SACD providing the sonic benefit of the higher resolution format, with the back compatibility to play in any machine.

The hardware folks should have stopped producing CDs players across the board. At that point, ONLY build SACD players, be it home, car, or portable.

The final straw for me was when Sony Music showed up at a big annual industry event way back, and were ready to throw their support behind DVD-A. Were I CEO of Sony, anyone at Sony Music who had ANY involvement in this whatsoever and voiced even the most half-hearted support, from the lowest mailroom clerk to the top executive at that division would have been fired as quickly as they could be identified.