Captain Harlock

I've been reading up on these Super Audio CD's. Apparently these CD's are supposed to have even better audio quality than the current CD format. And there are three types. There's the "Hybrid" which has a layer of standard CD audio and a layer of "Super Audio", but it can be played on a regular CD player. There's "Single Layer" CD's. Which only can be read by a Super Audio CD player. And there's the "Dual Layer Super Audio CD", which has two layers of SACD on it ( like a dual layer DVD).

Okay here's the problem I have with this. People aren't buying CD's now because they feel CD's are too expensive. Now you throw another format at them and tell them " okay you're going to pay even more for them now"? The current price for the Rolling Stones "Out of Our Hearts" is $21.62 on www.superaudio-cd.com.

I just think the industry is putting the cart before the horse. Instead of creating a new format and raising prices they should be lowering the prices on the current format. The reason why their profits are decreasing isn't because of downloading, it's because of their own greed and incompetance!!

Josh-da-man

You have to love the record companies.

Their sales are plummeting, yet they still look for new ways to make the consumer bend over and spread'em.

Coral

SACD was a format created with little regard for the average consumer.

Sony no longer gets paid for CD royalties, therefore they needed a new format.

The SACD layer is alot harder to copy, so that's another incentive for Sony and other record labels - not the consumer.

It sounds better than CD, but the average consumer either doesn't care about the improved sound, or doesn't have good enough equipment to hear the difference.

The only hope that SACD and DVD-A has is for the niche market.

The recording industry is getting what they deserve right now.
Charging high prices and not developing talent is really biting them on the ass.

DVD-Video is the format of the future.

Captain Harlock

It seems like since the inception of MTV the music industry has been in a downward spiral. What MTV did is it made instant superstars out of alot of "artists" who wouldn't have otherwise gotten a second look. What it's created is instead of true artists with staying power, instead is an endless procession of one-hit-wonders.

DVD video is truly the format of the future. What the film industry has done in 5 short years is truly amazing. They've promoted this new technology and used it as a progressive tool. DVD's have dropped in price by 50% in the last years and have actually GONE UP in quality.

The music industry needs to take a good long hard look at the film industry on how properly utilize a medium to it's fullest extent.

benedict

I, too, often think that CDs are overpriced and hate the constant tweaking and re-releasing of essentially the same back-catalogue albums....

.... but, particularly when considering new releases, when the comparison is made with DVDs I have to stop and think.

To some extent the DVD will represent the second bite at the cherry: the film company normally has earned some money via theatrical release and chances are that it will earn money in the future through television screenings. Concert tours for many, many artists are not huge money-making activities and nor are airplay fees. So the CD release is where they make back the money it cost to record and hopefully earn a living.

With a new DVD release on many occasions some of the original production costs have already been earned back and there can be an element of cross-subsidy.

I appreciate that there are straight-to-DVD releases that may challenge this view and that someone else may have a better handle on the economics than I do - these were were my initial thoughts as to why the release price of a new CD (not back-catalogue) could not fairly be compared directly with that of a new DVD.

hmurchison

I've thought of that scenario as well but then again I don't believe it holds enough water. Even a CHEAP movie can easily cost $15 Million to produce. It's a very rare CD that costs even %10 of that. Music production is a hobby of mine and I know that the last 10 yrs has seen a huge change in the Pro Recording landscape. Where large acts used to track and mix in the expensive studios you will find that they know track in their Project Studios and then mix down at a Pro facility. This has saved the Distributors Millions but the artists aren't compensated any additional monies for this.

There really is no logical reason why CD's are more expensive than the typical DVD. We are indeed being fleeced. The Studios say 1-20 Acts survive...well why should I have to subsidize 19 bad acts by overpaying for a CD? They have brought this upon themselves and it will continue to get worse. I don't feel sorry. I look at CD's as promotional items now...actually they've always been but now Artists need to tour to make money unless you have Mulit Platinum sales to match...you're not making enough off of CD Sales.

Patman

Circuit City has some SACDs for sale around the $13.99 mark. But I doubt they are hybrids, though.

einTier

CD was just too good a format. The record companies got used to selling an album, then reselling it a few years later on new media. Now, they are looking for something to replace CD, but here's the problem:

1) CD has good enough sound quality. No, it's not perfect, but most people won't notice the difference. Hell, most people are listening to 128kpbs mp3s and can't tell the difference. Not only that, it shows that people don't want better quality, they want convienence.
2) CD is fairly durable. Yes, it would be better in a mini-disk like tray, but it's still far more durable than a tape.
3) It doesn't degrade noticeably over time.
4) Once you buy a CD, you don't have to pay for the content ever again. Music companies would love for the next format to have "pay per listen" capabilities, or charge you extra to play the music on more than one CD player or transfer it to another media -- see Divx.
5) (most) CDs aren't copy protected. Once I have a CD, I can transfer that music into almost any format I want. I can edit it, mix it, burn it to a mix CD, listen to it on any number of unlicensed players.
6) There is a vast installed base of players.
7) CDs are now easily copyable and it's easy to make your own CD.

In fact, the only thing against CDs really is that they are too expensive. And, it doesn't matter how you justify it, the fact is, the general public doesn't think it's a good buy. When you look at the cost of a CD, which has an hour or so of just music, and it costs as much as a DVD, which has two or three hours of audio and visual entertainment, it doesn't make much sense. That's just one thing. For $20, I could buy a video game with 40+ hours of fully interactive entertainment, or three or four books, or a 100 stack spindle of CD-Rs. There's so much competing for my entertainment dollar, and competes at a somewhat reasonable price, it's very hard for me to justify buying a CD. Paying more for a restricted, copy-protected SACD (that won't play in 90% of the CD players I own) is absolute folly.

There are plenty of companies who went out of business because they couldn't deliver product at a cost the market thought was fair -- there is no law that says you are entitled to profit. I also wish that the record companies would ask GM how well not listening to your customers does for your market share and profit margins.