Are "boomers" the key to high resolution audio? I think so... (1 Viewer)

[LanceJ]

When I spoke of more "stuff" on a dvd-audio I was comparing it to a CD. And the stuff in question are mainly these things:

* a set of stereo hi-res tracks
* a set of surround hi-res tracks
* a set of Dolby Digital (and/or DTS) compressed surround tracks that anyone with a dvd-video player can use
* a stereo Dolby track

BTW: On several label's discs (DTS Entertainment, AIX, Hi-Res Music & several Capitol and Warner titles), the hi-res stereo track can be played back on dvd-video players except for certain really early models that don't include 96kHz/24bit digital-to-analog convertors.

Video bonuses I could care less about & would much rather look at in a paper booklet:

* artist discographies
* artist mug shots
* artist bios

I keep reading how long these things can really hold up a title's release while waiting for legal clearances and such--did some focus group say they couldn't live without them or something?

Music videos are fine with me. Many such videos qualify as a form of art to me so keep'em coming (Peter Gabriel's "Big Time" and "Sledgehammer" videos always pop into my head when I think about this subject. And Madonna's "Ray Of Light" was really cool--it reminded me of the movie Koyaanisqatsi but with positive-message dance music instead ).

LJ

 

[Phil A]

Lance, I think everyone agress that a DVD-A contains more than music (vs. a CD or SACD) and I guess it is a question of whether one thinks it is of value or not. If one looks at my response to Glenn on the prior page, it is highly likely that on this forum we are in the minority with our main preference being 2-channel. I don't necessarily agree that long-term 'boomers' are the key to 'hi-res' success. I think short-term with more disposable income we will keep the formats going as niche formats and the sales of those will determine whether one or the other or both survive. Ultimately, once the success gets to a certain point and the back catalogs of more successful older artists are done, someone at the record cos. will have to make the decision to release the more current stuff or keep the products are niche premium products.

 

[Justin Lane]

They (BMG) don't have lots of other titles out there I've seen, this site, although only updated to the end of April - http://www.greatgig.com/quad/dvd-a-list.html shows the one BMG title, so I'm not sure what their general pricing would be.

Phil,

BMG has recently released a new batch of DVD-A titles including Santana Supernatural and Shaman, and discs from Rod Stewart, Wyclef Jean, Luther Vandross and a few others I can't remember off the top of my head. These discs can be had online at around $14.

J

 

[Phil A]

Justin have not checked online. Best Buy has been slow getting stuff in their stores. I also was at Tower last week and they had none of those titles. I remember somewhere reading that the stereo track on the Supernatural DVD-A suffers from the same compression that was on the CD. It is good to see that BMG came down to earth on pricing. The key to hi-res success is available software by known artists at CD-like pricing. It should be intereting to see what EMI does when DSOTM is released on DVD-A since the SACD is already priced like a regular CD.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Ultimately, once the success gets to a certain point and the back catalogs of more successful older artists are done, someone at the record cos. will have to make the decision to release the more current stuff or keep the products are niche premium products.

I think the important thing to do is create a "virtuous cycle" whereby current hybrid successes like DSOTM and Dylan draw more big artists which further creates additional demand from consumers (and lower production prices on software and hardware) which leads to more unit sales which leads to more artists exploring hirez and the cycle repeats.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Yeah, but it won't be picked up by the boomers.

I see it this way..
Some of us got ripped off with 8-track. (Ok, I was one) Just like beta, when it came out it was better than cassette, but again, the dummer product won out.

Most of us know what 'stereo' is. Some have even gone through the mono > stereo transition. Most LP's came out in mono only, and after a few years, some came out in both mono and stereo. You'd have to be stupid to spend an extra buck and pick up a stereo album if you only had mono equipment, unless you were going to upgrade in the near future.

You either have CD's now or you don't. If you don't, you're not going to pick anything up. If you do, you're going to wonder, just like I did, how anyone can improve on a stereo format, which is basically what we heard originally, recorded or live. We grew up with it. We know it. We are it. Just don't ask me to operate a cellphone.

Glenn

 

[Phil A]

Glenn, I can operate a cell phone as long as my bifocals are on. You should even seriously hear what 2-channel SACD can do. The new Patricia Barber Mobile Fidelity release of "Companion" is a hybrid and almost hard to believe it is a live recording. I have not listened to the CD layer (only played the disc once thru plus some tracks over) as most often it does not touch the SACD layer in terms of quality of realistic reproduction. I had a friend over who wanted to hear what SACD could do and I played the CD layer of things I never listened to before (played the SACD layer). He thought that was unbelievable until he heard the SACD layer.

 

[Rachael B]

Glenn, if SACD had stayed stereo only, I'd stille be into it just the same. Oh, as long as the discs are hybrids....

 

[Lee Scoggins]

If you do, you're going to wonder, just like I did, how anyone can improve on a stereo format, which is basically what we heard originally, recorded or live. We grew up with it. We know it.

If you are wondering about SACD and stereo, I can tell you with confidence that the higher sampling rate alone adds boat loads of realism you can hear.

If you think people will be reluctant to go surround, this may change with boomers as Mercury Living Presence SACDs and other classic recordings come out that involve more than two channel...There is a lot of great four channel stuff from Pentatone for example.

My concern with surround is simply that the cost of the extra speakers is a real addition and that may slow adoption somewhat, but it is well worth it. And 5.1 stereos are coming down in price every day.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Maybe this is a subject for another thread since Warners is also subsidizing DVDA.

Tiresome. My commentary was in no way a criticism of Sony for subsidizing SACD. Also, DVD-A has no relevance whatsoever to that commentary. Not everything is about the so-called format war (tempest in a teapot).

My point is simply that, if single-inventory high-res discs increase net profits, as you repeatedly claim (with no supporting evidence), why are there apparently no major-label single-inventory titles...other than the ones that are subsidized?

If you are going to continue to claim that single-inventory titles increase profits, please provide some support. And please don't change the subject or go off on some tangent.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

My point is simply that, if single-inventory high-res discs increase net profits, as you repeatedly claim (with no supporting evidence), why are there apparently no major-label single-inventory titles...other than the ones that are subsidized?

I have heard that they are increasing profits from people in the industry. The fact that we are seeing more single inventory releases is testament to the fact that something is working and the labels find value in it. Otherwise, why spend the time and investment dollars when cost controls are so tight?

Why release the Dylan series in Super Audio format when you could have done a redbook only release?

Why would Peter Gabriel get a bunch of hybrids when it increases the cost of remastering and pressing?

The reasons are twofold: 1) they see profits from the releases, and 2) they find value in the high resolution concept.

My friends in the business tell me that music sales are so bleak now that any additional revenue stream is prized.

I wish I could share some cash flow numbers with you from a label but I don't have any since it is such proprietary information.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Why would Peter Gabriel get a bunch of hybrids when it increases the cost of remastering and pressing?

Why did none of those discs get released in North America as single-inventory items? Were they subsidized in Europe and Japan and not here?

Perhaps single-inventory discs do increase profit in Europe and Japan. Perhaps not. I certainly admit my attention is largely directed at the North American market.

I can only think of the following single-inventory major-label pop/rock discs in North America (please point out others...I'm sure there are a couple):

Rolling Stones (series)
Bob Dylan (series)
Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon"
The Police "Every Breath You Take: The Classics"

It is widely known that the first three are subsidized; I'm not sure of the Police disc.

Are you asserting that North American labels have "hard" numbers that single-inventory discs increase profits? If so, where are the single-inventory non-subsidized discs?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

If so, where are the single-inventory non-subsidized discs?

My understanding is that Sony & Philips have not subsidized every release and that many are not subsidized. The large production costs for a major remastering series like a Stones or Dylan can be large so a subsidy here might help.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

My understanding is that Sony & Philips have not subsidized every release and that many are not subsidized. The large production costs for a major remastering series like a Stones or Dylan can be large so a subsidy here might help.

What releases? Two discs? One 'Pink Floyd' and one 'Police'? Two discs? We are talking about single-inventory pop-rock discs here. You know, the ones that you love to quote sales figures on, and then talk about how SACD is changing the industry due to the increased profits of these discs.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

What releases? Two discs? One 'Pink Floyd' and one 'Police'? Two discs? We are talking about single-inventory pop-rock discs here. You know, the ones that you love to quote sales figures on, and then talk about how SACD is changing the industry due to the increased profits of these discs.

There are not that many single inventory releases as of yet, so to limit discussion to that misses the point, doesn't it? My point is that single inventory is the best way to go and it has been successful where tried and I hear it is helping get other artists on board. What better way for a label to monetize their back catalog? and maybe lay the foundation for a new revenue stream. A no brainer to me as long as the costs are manageable and I hear they are.

You just have to take my word that these single inventory discs are profitable. I do believe that David Kawakami has also said this before as well.

The proof is in the signings: 1) more artists are coming into Super Audio like George Harrison, and 2) more labels are picking up Super Audio.

In an atmosphere where everyone is pretty much losing lots of money, no one is likely to create another cost center. The fact that executives tell me it is profitable business and that more demand is occuring on the label side tells you all you need to know.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

DVD-A, DVD-A, DVD-A, DVD-A, DVD-A, DVD-A, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah!

You are so format-war obsessed. You are always trying to stir up this nonsense. What is the matter?

If you aren't trying to change the subject to DVD-A, you are trying to change the subject to something other than single-inventory discs.

You have repeatedly spouted single-inventory sales figures and then stated that the increased profits from such releases are turning heads in the industry.

This claim is the among the most absurd I have ever heard. Pressing a million single-inventory discs that you claim cost a quarter to a dollar more than CDs will increase profits as opposed to the alternative? The alternative being to press 990,000 cheap Redbook CDs and 10,000 SACDS for the high-res rack. That makes me laugh hard!

I say that if single-inventory discs increased profits, they would not be subsidized one dime, and we would have a ton of them. And Sony would be issuing press releases and crowing from the rooftops about how they have come up with a model/format to increase record industry profits!

I do believe that David Kawakami has also said this before as well.

Again, not objective, but please reference sources of his exact quotes so what we can frame them in the proper context.

 

[Chris_Eff]

I have noticed an increase in more single-inventory SACD releases. Both the new GBYR and Tommy were single-inventory remasters(I know that they are coming to DVD-A, but there was no redbook release), plus there was the recently released indepedant David Elias - The Window release as a single inventory. I know these are not the greatest examples but it is an increase that I have noticed.

In keeping with the original intent of the thread, I have been doing my best to get my pre-boomer friends to get into hi-res. It goes against my grain to support theater in a box but the dream systems are great to get people started with nothing and it includes SACD playback and the can play the DD DVD-A tracks. However, my wife's little sister in high school wanted an MP3 player for Christmas so the teenage market is definatly still liking the MP3 route.

One last note the Rolling Stone greatest albums sampler disc has been a great help to me informing people. My parents have an SACD capable player and still did not understand it. I played that disk and now they want DSOTM and Norah Jones for Christmas.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Both the new GBYR and Tommy were single-inventory remasters(I know that they are coming to DVD-A, but there was no redbook release), plus there was the recently released indepedant David Elias - The Window release as a single inventory. I know these are not the greatest examples but it is an increase that I have noticed.

Reissues aren't single inventory unless they replace the CD in CD bins everywhere and the CD version is taken out of print. Essentially, the CD is the SACD. If you have to go to the high-res bin, it's not single-inventory, it is just hybrid. This is not a bad thing.

Tommy and GYBR don't seem to be sold as the new CD around here. Perhaps inventory hasn't fully cycled yet. That would double the major-label pop/rock single-inventory from two to four (not including Rolling Stones and Dylan). It would be very interesting to see if there is any subsidy for Tommy and GYBR.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Can't do that. Can't even consider it.

Fine by me, but I have good contacts in the music business and have worked on albums before, know the process, the typical costs involved, and are familiar with small and big label economics. If I had confidential numbers on costs, I would not ethically be able to share them anyway as other labels could gain advantage and I could be sued.

The best I can do is lay out my case logically as possible and let others decide for themselves.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Reissues aren't single inventory unless they replace the CD in CD bins everywhere and the CD version is taken out of print.

Not true, there is no requirement that the CD be taken out of print. The definition is that it be the only issue of a remastered album. There will also be prior versions of the album to be found as retailers work through their inventory.