Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   VCR = VHS???

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2003 @ 1:07pm

   
   

   You use the term VCR when you probably mean the term VHS. There were both VHS VCR's and Betamax VCR's. VHS won out over Betamax because, like you said, it was what the customer wanted, not the best that was available (similar to cassette tapes over DAT tapes).

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Re: VCR = VHS???

   

   Mike (profile), Jan 27th, 2003 @ 1:11pm

   
   

   Dah! Good point. You're absolutely right. My brain was slow and I'm going to fix this right now.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Like, Duh!

   

   DV Henkel-Wallace, Jan 27th, 2003 @ 3:18pm

   
   

   (not "Duh" for you, mike, but for these SACD losers).
   I remember the CD switch: People chose CD because 1> it was smaller and 2> it was easier (didn't get scratchy right away). The "pure sound" -- that was OK, but not a reason really to switch (c'mon: otherwise why would you put up with a CD in a boom box?).
   Nobody will find SACD "super" because it doesn't add anything of value to 99.9999% of listeners.
   This SACD pitch, apart from control aspects, is just another case of technofacism.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: Like, Duh!

   

   Michael M, Jan 27th, 2003 @ 3:37pm

   
   

   You forgot 3> because it was shiny.
   
   But you're right. Only a few audiophiles care about the sound quality. And half of them still think that LPs sounded better than CDs.
   
   My worry is that consumers will be dragged unwillingly into this format (If you want the new CD by your favorite band, it's only available in SACD)

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re: Like, Duh!

   

   DV Henkel-Wallace, Jan 27th, 2003 @ 9:15pm

   
   

   You forgot 3> because it was shiny.

   Actually, I don't think this applies at all to the mass market, much as marketeers want to think it does. After all, we all already had huge investments in vinyl and the equipment to play it. "Shiny" isn't enough reason to change -- else digital cassette would have made it.
   Remember: the PC industry is suffering because consumers are resisting the "shiny" pitch.
   

   My worry is that consumers will be dragged unwillingly into this format (If you want the new CD by your favorite band, it's only available in SACD)

   I suspect people just won't buy 'em when they find out that they won't work in the car/portable/whatever player.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   some SACDs can be copied (sortof)

   

   Geoff, Feb 5th, 2003 @ 1:26pm

   
   

   some SACDS are now hybrid discs, with layer 1 being DVD sized storage of SACD, and layer 2 being standard audio cd, the lesser quality layer 1 can be ripped like any standard cd, and in my experience ~5 discs, it follows redbook cd standards.
   
   It would seem they have caught on to the fact that they cannot stop the copying, but they make you pay to get the higher quality. Imho, this should have happened ages ago.
   
   Geoff

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Selling points

   

   JeffDM, Jun 27th, 2003 @ 8:17am

   
   

   One thing missed is that SACD and DVD-Audio both have multi-channel options. Even for the many people that can't tell the resolution difference, they can still tell the number of channels. The stereo-only SACDs likely aren't going to sell very well.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment