[eric the red]

Check this guy's list of titles out that he's selling: http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?softdisc&1064542309&2&3&4&. From what I've read, there are about 1000 different SACD titles in print now. A lot of them are obscure titles like the ones on the above list. If you were trying to sell a new format like SACD to the masses, wouldn't it make more sense to release titles that people actually listen to first and have sold well in the past before you start releasing the obscure stuff? I can't imagine that Pilhoffer's Jazz Quartet sells a lot of copies .

[John B]

Considering most of these obscure titles are actually recorded decently, compared to the popular titles, where no amount of hi-res transfer is going to help, it's understandable  As for the masses, I don't think they care all that much about quality recordings or the level of resolution they can achieve.

[bubba966]

I'd bet a part of it is also that licensing fees to these obscure artists aren't nearly as high as those of pop artists.

That way they can dump out a large inventory quickly w/out much expenature. Then in all of their advertising they can advertise "over 1,000 titles already on SACD with more coming everyday" or something to that effect to get more hardware out there as they've got people thinking there's a good selection.

[Rob Babcock]

The labels are trying to regurgitate the old crap and make a profit by getting a premium price for old garbage that they otherwise couldn't give away on LP or CD.

If those idiots had any sense they'd release stuff we actually want to buy.  Of course if they knew that they wouldn't be idiots, I guess.