| Newsgroups |
gmane.comp.audio.eac.user |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
On 02/14/2017 09:29 AM, Fred Maxwell [email protected] [EAC] wrote:
> Even at its introduction, SACD was not going to win over people
> happily trading 128kbps MP3s over Napster.
I agree. I meant SACD was at least in part a /reaction/, an attempt to
stand above the CD. Clearly it was financially-driven, but I think they
were also trying to distinguish themselves from what had become a
“compromised” format. And of course they also wanted to kill DVD-A since
it wasn't their patent.
> SACD wouldn’t play on their portables, in their cars, in their
> computers, on their home CD player, or even on their home DVD player.
Sony at their finest again! Introduce a format half-way, then more or
less abandon it. You'll note that Sony is still producing SACD players
but as far as I can tell any SACDs with content from their library are
being produced by boutique labels. Complete insanity.
My very nice MiniDisc recorder has developed a problem with the loading
mechanism. I just learned from the local shop that they can probably
repair it, but only if the actual playback pieces don't have to be
removed. Once that's done, they can only be re-assembled with the help
of a special alignment disc /which Sony will no longer provide/. Now
/that/ is some serious contempt for the customer! In the meantime, I
have some one-off stuff that I may not be able to convert to a modern
format.
> You will note that iTunes is thriving. SACD and Blu-ray? Not so much.
You're right, though I'd also note that part of the reason iTunes and
streaming services are doing well is because they've managed to screw
the artists pretty seriously. Buying a physical disc nets the artist a
much bigger royalty even though selling the files is considerably easier
for the suppliers.