Where is All the DSD?

The reality of this promising format is not too exciting so far, is it? My vinyl keeps me satisfied. But DSD could be such a cool thing for music lovers (as opposed to gear lovers).

Disappointed...

Echoing a number of the above posts, I'm very disappointed with hi-res music download offerings. Not just DSD, but also 24/96/196. I'm NOT going to pay HD Tracks 25 bucks for a 24/196 copy of Bayou Country by Credence. Love the album, but not the price. I didn't buy into SACD either because of the high price point. As many others have said, mainstream adoption of hi-res will not happen if prices remain this high. And catch 22, the selection will remain poor unless wider adoption occurs. Ay, there's the rub. If Sony would just step up to the plate and belt out a nice barrage of reasonably priced downloads, then I think a flame could potentially spark up, even with the twenty somethings. (wishful thinking) But for now, I'm content with playing my Redbook CD's through a good DAC and playing whatever decent vinyl I have.

I'm not sure that dropping the price of hi-rez downloads would be a good business strategy for Sony. If Sony has closely studied the market for this product (and you can be 100% sure that they have), it's entirely possible that they've concluded that the market is small and mostly price insensitive. IOW, most prospective download purchasers don't care about SQ and those who do care aren't too concerned with price. (Bearing in mind here that we're talking about mass purchases, not the Audiogon community.) Would it surprise you if that were the case?

I live in LA and am friendly with several record company execs. Trust me, it's a tough gig. These people are smart, dedicated and clearly love music. They need to make a buck to keep their jobs and they're obviously doing what they can.

To me, the biggest issue is that digital distribution has devalued content. The critical mass of buyers today is not willing to pay for music in the way that the critical mass in the past was. People want their content fast and cheap and SQ is low on their list of priorities.

Oddly, Don Jr's comment re: Kodak may be quite true, if not quite in the way it was intended. When the total $ spent on photo finishing (Kodak's bread and butter) dropped like a rock in the wake of digital alternatives, the company collapsed. If they didn't have such a massive investment in physical plant that suddenly was worth pennies on the dollar, Kodak might have survived as a small boutiquey company, but that's probably best case.

Sometimes, technology kills (or, at least, maims) entire industries and I suspect that that's what's happening in the recording industry today. Just MHO.

Unfortunate, but probably mostly true. As I said, wishful thinking. Tech can certainly be disruptive in many ways, and not always for the better. Despite its obvious advantages, photography has in a sense also been devalued by digital.