DVD-Audio Sales Five Times that of SACD Says RIAA Survey

So now the RIAA is an anti-Sony puppet? Note that the DVD-Audio Council did not conduct the survey.

 

It's too hard to judge this. Sales figures and survey results can be skewed. Did they count the Stones SACDs? The DSOTM? If they were only counting single layer SACD discs, then one could believe that.

Frankly, as someone who buys both formats with the same amount of excitement, I don't see either flying off the shelves.

When you have two formats that are similar (notice I did not say competing against each other), sales is more title dependant than anything else.

If a great DVD-A title comes out one week, and lower profile titles come out on SACD, then DVD-A will sell more.

If the Beatles came out on either format, that format would swamp the other. As I said before, in the year 2004, there really hasn't been a killer release in either format.

We're still waiting.................

 

..
Well, they would be if they had any sense

 

I'd take anything the RIAA says with a grain of salt, personally. If they were behind this study, well...

As for my own collecting habits: I have probably 30 SACDs now and, at most, about six DVD-A titles. There's just rarely anything interesting on DVD-A that I want to buy.

 

Let's suppose single-inventory discs that are scanned as CDs don't count.

Pink Floyd DSotM moved a million units, Dylan moved 700,000 units. I can't find the Stones, let's say 2 million (I think this is generous). Let's say all the jazz/classical single inventory discs of 2003 sold a couple million (again, generous). That would bump SACD market share from .5% to about 1.4%...still half that of the reported DVD-A figures.

Whatever the truth is, I assure you that what us older music geeks are buying doesn't have much influence on what formats are selling to the mass consumers.

 

You'd think it would be the other way around. SACD is uncopyable!

 

I must say that I quite agree with Michael's point of view. I have found interesting titles in both formats. Yet I believe that DVD-Audio makes it easier to introduce both MC music and the high resolution formats to the general public. Why? Because if they own a regular DVD player or Home Cinema setup they can, at least, get to hear their favorite album's 5.1 mix (albeit in a lossy format) on the DVD-Video section. And I bet the next machine many of them will buy will be an universal one. You just don't get this on a hybrid SACD. If you currently own a regular DVD or CD player (that do not support DVD-Audio or SACD) you only have access to the regular redbook CD sound you already know, so its hard to know what you are missing.

Who cares if the general public, at least for now, doesn't 'come closer' to the high resolution formats through SACD? If they do so through DVD-Audio, so be it. Again, once they purchase an universal player as their next one (which is quite probable given the way the market's going) they'll be able to choose whatever format their ears or musical tastes determine is the best.

Anyway, here's a link to the RIAA study results, which might shine some light on this matter (notice the difference between the recorded data on SACD sales and DVD-Audio ones):

http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/pdf/2003consumerProfile.pdf

 

Yes it is. The fact that there are so many more hybrid and single inventory release SACD's in comparison to DVD-A which, basically, has none would be reason enough to believe that SACD's just on the law of averages would sell more copies 'by accident' to unknowing consumers. CD sales, failing as they allegedly may be, still outnumber DVD sales by a wide margin, so the chances of 'accidentally' buying an SACD are much greater than 'accidentally' buying a DVD-A. The amount of people who knowingly purchase a DVD-A for the multichannel mixes (not MLP) cannot be that much greater either, as all market research I have seen shows that, though growing, the majority of people do not have 'surround sound' capability in their homes. How many purchasers, for either format, are actually even aware of or capable of playing the high resolution material is another question entirely. The hybrid SACD releases are not limited only to catalogue items by baby boomer bands like The Stones or Pink Floyd either: Death Cab for Cutie, The Suitcase Pimps, Ryan Adams, Björk, Allison Moorer, Alison Krauss, and Nickel Creek are an example of just a few. When I go into stores like Best Buy and Circuit City, in this area at least, I invariably see SACD's mixed in with the redbook CD's, but DVD-A's usually are not.

When all is said and done, the fact that we even need to have a discussion about who is buying what format 'accidentally' versus who is aware of buying high resolution material etc. is evidence that the industry has dropped the ball on both formats.

 

What I find interesting about those results is the fact that they did not start collecting data on SACD sales until 2003, as opposed to 2001 for DVD-A, that there is a +- 1.8 percent margin for error and they don't state what industry (if any) they may be employed in, what their income level is, how many titles per year they purchase on average, or what sort of playback system they use (stereo? HT? DiscMan?). Also, If they don't have data collected for SACD sales for the previous 2 years, how can they make a claim as to DVD-A having a wider gain in market share compared to SACD? The difference (if there really is any) in 'sales' especially with that margin for error could simply be title dependent. That glaring omission on its own sends up a red flag in my book.

 

My personal experience, though limited, is the opposite. I have three local, offline friends (aged 40 to 60, high five to six figure income) that buy DVD-A for the lossy surround tracks. None of they, or my other offline friends buy SACD, period. I do have a couple of coworkers who have unknowingly bought exactly one SACD each (one Pink Floyd for the redbook layer, one Rolling Stones for the redbook layer).

On that I agree with you 110%.

 

Would anyone here agree with this statement (not mine, but heard at a retailer from a self proclaimed expert)

"DVD-A is a surround sound format, SACD is an audiophile format"

???

 

I don't know why the possibility of SACD including a surround format is seen by the format's purists as something that should belong in the DVD-A one. Hey, I prefer Roxy Music's "Avalon" in 5.1 (greater depth) than in stereo. Why can't both formats also offer 5.1?

I think there is more than one post in this forum where members and visitors mention that DVD-Audio and SACD, if done well, are both of very high quality. Then, what's this insistence on one being audiophile and not the other except for how each has been marketed (whenever this has been done).

As far as I can remember the first SACD titles (and also the first DVD-Audio ones) were marketed to Baby Boomers and audiophiles who had the money and were willing to spend it.

If any of the two high resolution formats was to find a large market out there we would all reap the benefits. Of course, as is the case in DVD, you would have a lot of bad titles, mixes and mastering, but you would also see an increase of good ones because there would be a potentially larger market for them.

 

I work in the survey research industry as a programmer, so I feel well qualified to address the issue of the accuracy of this poll. First off, in the interest of full disclosure, I work for a firm that is a direct competitor of Peter Hart & Associates, who conducted this poll for the RIAA. Hart's firm is very well respected within the industry and I trust that they have provided accurate results. A 1.8% margin of error provides an extrodinarily high confidence in the accuracy of the data. Most political polls you see mentioned on TV news shows have margins of error well in excess of 6%, meaning they are virtually useless in telling you what the actual vote would be "if you were voting today."

Polling results may be interpreted many different ways, depending on a wide variety of factors, including: the precise wording of the questions, in what order the questions were asked, gender/race of interviewer vs. gender/race of respondent, demographic targets chosen for weighting purposes, and perhaps most importantly, bias of the person doing the interpreting. I have not read the questionnaire (I have a contact at Hart who didn't respond to my e-mail asking for a copy), so I can only assume how the questions were asked. The most important issue is how the respondents were asked what media they buy. This can be asked in one of two ways: open-ended or categorical. An open-ended question would be "When you buy recorded music, what format or formats do you usually choose?". A categorical question would be "When you buy recorded music, do you buy CD, cassette, DVD-A, SACD, etc.?"

Let's assume that they used a category question. Then, the question becomes whether they were called "SACD"s or "Super Audio Compact Discs", becuase that would make a difference in the percentage of people who would have said they buy SACDs. I'm willing to bet more would have said they bought "Super Audio Compact Disc" than "SACD," regardless of whether they know what that format is, since people tend to inflate their responses when presented with words like "Super." This is why every product you buy calls itself "new and improved." Those words test well because what interviewee wouldn't say he would buy a product that is "new and improved"? Research professionals know this, and we warn our clients not to overreact to high numbers when such buzzwords are used, but since the client pays for our service, he can choose to listen to our advice or not...

Which brings us to the DVD Audio Council. If you read the official RIAA press release on their site, it doesn't even mention the high-rez results (I have a lot of problems with the RIAA, but this is not anti-Sony bias on their part) ... the Council released the presser that shouted to the world that DVD-A sales doubled in 2003, not the RIAA. Big surprise that they would want to make this announcement. However, since SACDs weren't tested in previous years, it's impossible to know whether the sales increase is the same for SACDs or not. Without that data, you can't make the argument that DVD-As are winning the war. It's an apples and oranges argument. Plus, I'm certain SACD was under-represented because many of the people who bought the Dylan and Stones hybrids didn't realize they were buying SACDs. Actual sales figures are the only way to truly determine who's winning the format war.

Of course, I prefer SACD, so I was massaging the results to support my position. This is why you must always take poll results with a grain of salt.

Sorry for the long post, but this one was right up my alley.

 

Very well said Dan.

As someone who does research for a cable network, I always look for holes in things like this. It's also why I always rant about taking PR as fact. The only thing that you can say with some confidence is that in 2003 that more people reported buying dvd-as than sacds - but really the only way to know is real sales data which there are problems with that too (how many of those dylan/stones hybrids were purchased for the sacd layer).

As Dan mentioned we don't know everything about how the survey was conducted. While Dan brought up the fact that more people probably would have (falsely) indicated they purchased SACDs if they were called Super Audio CDs, I would also want to know that DVD-as were accurately described in order to make sure that people really knew what they were (not lumping them in with regular music dvds) saying they bought. This may have been done, but we don't know at this point.

That said, it is truly and utterly pointless to take issue with this or any other piece of research because your own personal experience is different. While you may know people who do differently compared to what the research shows, there is no way in hell that you can make a judgement that is representitive of what something with a sample size of 2900 can. Certainly the behavior of people who visit the SH forums several times a month (and more) means absolutely nothing in terms of either formats success in the mainstream. In fact, my guess is that we aren't even representitive of the tiny audiophile community.

Think about it.

 

I wonder how many folks responded "DVD-A" and really meant MUSIC DVD-V!!??


BTW - For those keeping score, I have about 65 DVD-A's and 40 SACDs, and I love them all (except the Looney Tunes DVD-A ).

PS - The only Silverline DVD-A I own is "Ziroq" and that one is not bad.

 

I have about 90 SACDs and about 6 dvd-a discs. I know only one other person personally who owns a sacd player an he got it mainly to have the stones stuff in hi-res.

 

Well, that's part of the point I made above. While the results do break music dvds out separately, I would hope that the poll itself specifically made clear what dvd-a was.

 

I have 40 DVD Audio and 0 sacd and will never get any

 

A very unlikely ratio in my opinion that does not jibe with reality at all and is probably the result of an artifact in tracking music sales. I would assume they have tracked SACD-only discs compared to DVD-A discs, which simply ignores the 20 million or so hybrid SACD's that have been sold over the last few years!
-wolf

 

I don't believe that for a minute.

 

Why would the RIAA want to slant a survey in favor of DVD-Audio and against SACD? As an organization that represents the industry it is not hard to imagine that what they want to see is more sales across the board no matter what the format. I am quite sure that if any of the high resolution formats picks up more sales - no matter which one - they will be happy it does. As I see it, the industry desperately needs these 'new' formats to help them get out of the sales slump.

 

Yes, they do need SACD and DVD-A to help them get out of the sales slump.

 

Because of this thread I had to go count my hi-rez discs, 87 DVD-A, 76 SACD, mostly all surround. I find polls interesting, but the only real settlement to the arguments herein are actual sales figures for both formats, which the labels are unlikely to provide.

 

Let me see, 9 DCC gold disks; 4 CD-R copies of other DCC gold disks; 42 SACD disks, and 1 DVD-A disk. No DTS CD's and one DTS DVD samlper music video collection.

Richard.

 

Bingo.

As just for the record, I have 525 SA-CDs and 93 DVD-As.

No one I know really own either, knowingly. A few hybrids here and there. But a lot of them own DVD-V music discs. And I sell used copies of both and SA-CD are much easier to sell off than DVD-As. Although both do not hold a candle to DVD.