SACD hybrids bad policy from Sony/Columbia?

I see Rsbeck you've taken my post as a dig at SACD - it wasn't,I simply don't understand Sony's policy other than greed and giving floating voters the chance to avoid buying SACD.

There is no doubt those with good SACD replay are more than happy,no make that delighted with the format.
I'd love to hear Tireguys new player because clearly it's world class in CD replay but also gives the bonus of "going to another level" with SACD.

However you have contradicted yourself over these SACD debates-you were a big fan of this Trojan Horse policy and this is clearly a spanner in the works.
Also you've stated in the past some of The Stones hybrids sound better on the CD layer so that hardly makes the CD obsolete.

We look at things differently for sure but I realise how happy you are with what you experience listening to SACD; my worry is that SACD will not survive outwith the niche Audiophile market and the signs are is that it is simply not entering into the mainstream nor probably ever will.

If the likes of the Emms Lab technology could filter down to a more affordable level and ALL music was released as SACD then we'd surely all win as lovers of music-as it is it might never happen if Sony are pulling these kind of stunts.
I don't believe for a minute there is not some brilliant music you would love to hear on SACD and can't.
The way things are going you might never hear them on SACD.

We talk a lot about the relative sonic qualities of SACD and DVD-A. My take on this is that either one can deliver good recording and mastering techniques, and neither can redeem inept work.

However, in addition to sonic quality, one should consider the development potential of the protocol, and here DVD-A excels. For example, DVD can be 196KHz stereo, or 96 KHz multichannel. European producers are releasing multichannel programs with different channel utilization and loudspeaker positioning (2+2+2 instead of 5.1). I think I heard of discs that allowed the user to select a "listener perspective" (back row, front row, onstage) via selection of mixdown coefficients on the disk. The limited video is really nice, for program notes (that are usually printed in a tiny unreadable font) and selection of cuts.

On the other hand I think that Sony has really tied the hands of users of their SACD protocol.

I always thought that audiophiles were chronic tweekers. DVD-A is made for tweeking, SACD is not.

Mr. Campbell, perhaps you should write this down so you don't misquote me every time this debate pops up. I wrote that on *ONE* of my SACD's, The Rolling Stones' Let it Bleed, I prefer the MIXES on some of the CD tracks, but the SACD layer has better SONICS. So, even on THAT hybrid, the superiority of the SACD FORMAT is demonstrated. So, now I have over 100 SACD's and
on ONE of them, I prefer the MIX on a few of the CD tracks. Further, I do appreciate the trojan horse strategy. These hybrid SACD releases have been successful. ANYTHING that puts MORE SACD's in the marketplace so I can get my hot little hands on them. As to me taking your comments as a dig at SACD -- LOL. Bad guess. Try to stay on topic this time.

Does anyone know the relative cost of manufacturing hybrid disks vs. redbook-only disks? That seems to only possible factor in this decsion, which I agree with Ben is mighty odd and quite disappointing.

Rsbeck ok,chill sir.

I'll take your word for the different mix on the layer,I haven't heard a different mix on any layer of the twenty or so SACD hybrids I own but I could be wrong and I see no point in digging out the disc to get caught in a petty debate.

I take your point on SACD superiority over the 100 discs.

I think I started this thread and it wasn't me who strayed off topic,most of the responses do that but I've long given up on the defensive stances of those who see no flaws in how SACD is developing so I hardly expect them to deal with my main point.