Duff advertising of the new formats?

[Scottmoose]

Reading a review of a new £24,000 Krell CD player in the UK hifi magazine Hifi Choice got me thinking the other day. Here in the UK, SACD and DVD-A are seemingly marketed to the masses (when they are mentioned at all outside the specialist press), not with multi-channel, but improved stereo sound quality over CD as the prime motivation for purchase. I hope that isn’t the case in the US, because I’m so unconvinced about the wisdom of this that I thought I’d try a basic experiment down at my local hifi dealer. Try it out yourselves and see what you think.
I had them set up a 2 channel stereo system in their demo room: a decent £500 amp, and £500 speakers (if you’re interested, or doubt their quality, they were a TAG McLaren 60i integrated powering Epos M12 stand-mounters. Cabling was Nordost Solar Wind. You won’t get much better amplification or speakers at that price).
Hardly entry level, and much better than what I own, but not so expensive as to be out ultimate reach for the majority of hifi enthusiasts / music lovers. A system that costs around the same as a holiday, then, and lasts a heck of a lot longer. I’m not a follower of high-end. The law of diminishing returns is at its strongest in supercars and hifi.
Now for the crunch: the source. This was what I wanted to compare, back to back. A Sony SCD770 SACD player against an Arcam CD62 using Mike Oldfield’s Tubular Bells in stereo.

Result? The SACD was good –excellent in fact, but it wasn’t a startling improvement over the standard CD in stereo (and I’m not that much of a cloth-eared nincompoop). Hmm. And that’s using midrange kit: a quality of amp and speakers that many will never have. Enough of an improvement for Mr Average to justify the outlay? Nope. Most multi format machines are a compromise in their CD capability too; not helpful when the majority of people’s album collections are on CD. So what’s the point in this strategy of selling because of ‘improved sound quality’? 99.999% of us do not, and never will hear lowly CD at its best, never mind DVD-A or SACD in stereo. It’s the magic suit of clothes again.
Let’s be realistic: the main discernable improvement in the new formats for most of us is multi-channel. That’s what we all want. I’m becoming more and more convinced that neither format will survive in the mass market if they don’t start pushing this capability harder. A marginal at best improvement in stereo sound quality over redbook compact disk is not a good reason for expensive upgrades. That was one of the reasons I originally asked here about the now forgotten quad capability of CD, because multi-channel is a good reason. And that’s why I’ll buy into SACD and DVD-A, not for any illusions about better quality sound in stereo.
What do you think? (Feel free to shoot me down in flames on this btw: I <em>want</em> to be convinced otherwise!)
Cheers
Scott8o

 

[AllAroundSurround]

I agree 100%! The Marketing Aspect is WAY off base and very lacking, to say the least! Most people don't even know about it! I've said this before, in other post here, and it's still true. Just go to your local Hi-Fi outlet and just randomly ask and see what kind of answers you get! Granted, you'll find the " HELP " is a little more knowledgeable , but it stops right about there! A SAD state of affairs indeed! The "SUITS" need to get on the ball and on the stick with the marketing , or all will be lost|I
Rob0]

 

[captainwrong]

I agree as well. It's not the small percent of audiophiles who are going to insure the sucess of these new formats. I don't think "Joe Sixpack" really has the kind of quipment to get improved fidelity out of these formats, nor do I think he really cares. CD is "perfect sound forever" after all.

However, with all the pre-packaged "home theater" kits out there, it just seems natural to sell these formats that way. I think Sony has one pre-package with SACD and that's it. I think with "home theater" being such a buzz word (or words, I guess,) wouldn't it be logical to give all these people who are buying DVD movies just to show off their systems some music for the same purpose?

Or maybe I'm just mad I was too young for quad the first time around?

 

[sspsandy]

I think the new multi channel formats will flourish in spite of all the stupidity. MTV and VH1 broadcast in surround, people with home theatre systems hear it, they have a DVD player, if they buy a DVD audio it will work in their home theatre setup.

 

[Scottmoose]

True. And I confess that DTS done well sounds pretty good to me (Though not as good as redbook CD). But that's partly my point. OK, so not many of us here are into high-end, correct? But we still do like decent sound quality. Joe Bloggs with his basic DVD-V player generally doesn't know about or care about a difference in fidelity, and this equipment can't reproduce the high end formats effectively enough for them to be worthwhile. So why should the companies bother catering for the smaller market & continue with their new high-tech & fidelity formats? Result: new formats die off, and music is released in lossy, compressed DTS (or, horror of horrors, DD!). Hmm. Retrograde step anyone? This isn't high-end either. This is lower to mid rung hifi on the cost scale. We may yet see a renessaisance of DTS disks, and while this will not exactly cause mass rioting or sleepless nights, as it's not too bad at all (compare it to MP3 or others!) it's be a shame if we can't, after all this time, and with all the stunningly capable hardware around now, get proper, high-fidelity, uncompressed sound.
Like I say, how I hope I'm wrong! I want to be convinced otherwise!

 

[Solar]

But I love the multi-channel sound
Thats why I think HDCD is good but I would not run out and buy a player for it. If SACD was just 2CH I would not have a player.

 

[Marcsten]

I know how you feel. I have been agonizing over which format if either to jump into. I can't say as I like the DVDA setup, sometimes requiring a TV, and although there are alot of interesting titles, many apparently are a joke re surround. Finally, there seems to be alot of talk about its imminent demise. SACD on the other hand has got it right technically, and the players are reasonable, but there are few titles that interest me and nearly none in surround. Worse, nearly everything seems done 2 channel lately except Dark Side. I have no need for a high definition 2 channel format, as I prefer vinyl for this purpose, and even vinyl provides a better selection than sacd. So really for me the suits have screwed it up again. I started out trying to decide which format to jump into and ended up not really wanting either. Things really need to change if either of these is going to get anywhere.
Marc

 

[sspsandy]

I am quite thrilled with the current explosion if multi-channel sound. I always thought quad was superior to stereo, but when it faded out the first time around I had to live with stereo for a long time. Out of nostalgia or a need to hear the best quality sound, I set up a quad system a little over a year ago. Now this new surround format arrives, admittedly with different formats and whatnot, but the sound quality of the quality discs is unreal. I'm currently running a DVD-A/DTS setup, as well as the quad, and intend to get a decent stand alone SACD player down the road. I just recorded the Yes "Fragile" DVD-a onto a cassette and played it through the Pro-Logic 2 processor in my car, all I can say is AWESOME! They have got the Dolby Surround 2 channel matrix encoded stuff down, man I've never heard music in a car sound better. I'm confident that there will be newer and better software coming, but in the meantime there's all this good new surround stuff available. Even though I'm still actively pursuing good SQ and CD-4 lp's, there's a limited supply of titles. So regardless of what happens, I'm gettin' in on it while the gettin's good.