Will you stick with hirez audio? (1 Viewer)

[Lee Scoggins]

I think I read something on Audio Asylum a week or two ago...I will try to find it.

 

[Paul.S]

Here's an interesting addendum to the DualDisc discussion started around post #128.

Anyone else yet seen the CD/DVD-A bundle of Seal IV that Warner released this past Tuesday (same day as the stand alone DVD-A; the CD of this album was released last September). Two discs packaged in a Digipak, it mates the standard CD with a DVD-A that is identical to the separately sold DVD-A. List price is $6 more than the DVD-A alone.

Will DVD-A listeners pay $24.99 list to get a CD to play in the car?

LOL. I guess this means that, as far as Warner is concerned, the DualDisc is a bust.

-p

 

[Justin Lane]

Not necessarily, though not hearing anymore about Dual-disc is somewhat discouraging. Warner has released titles, as CD/DVD-A combos in the past, well before Dual-disc hit the market. Most notably are the Flaming Lips and Barenaked Ladies.

J

 

[Paul.S]

Ahhh, J--my bad. I was unaware of the Lips and knew about the Ladies DVD-A but didn't know there was a companion CD/DVD-A release.

I gotta say that I'm scratching my head over these title choices though. None of these releases make as good of a trial balloon in terms of judging interest based upon sales as, say, the new Fleetwood Mac album would have.

-p

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I want to put something here in that this is slowly becoming apparent at least to me:

The 3 Fleetwood Mac lps: FM, Rumours, and Tusk, were just put out in Special Edition form, on CD.

Just saw in the latest Ice, that the Final Cut is also being re-released with a new mastering and the Tiger Breaks Free as an extra track. On CD.

If these stupid labels actually wanted SACD and DVD-A to succeed, they'd release SACDs/DVD-A's first, give them a few week head start, then release the CD version.

 

[Justin Lane]

Thankfully Rumors is already out on DVD-A. As For Fleetwood Mac and Tusk, these have long been rumored as DVD-A releases. In a Sound and Vision article awhile back, one of the writers was actually listening to the Tusk DVD-A, meaning the Hi-res stereo and multichannel mixes were already done. So whats holding up the releases? Your guess is as good as mine but it may be a combination of the Dual-Disc experiment, change of ownership at Warner, and artist issues over the royalties received over multiple versions of their albums offered on one disc.


J

 

[Paul.S]

Good point in the last sentence of your post #145, Kevin.

A related issue is also frustrating: bonus tracks appearing on remastered CDs that don't show up on the hi rez release of that album. Thriller is one of the more prominent examples.

-p

 

[Jean D]

I think that is an excellent idea. But I also think that people will feel like they are getting a media format forced on them, especially the die-hard fans who want the album and want it NOW! Imagine Pink Floyd released a new album, but only on DVD-A for 2 weeks before the cd version came out. Havok would ensue. people would feel justified in downloading (not me ) I think that they should release the cd version and the DVD-A the same time, but have 4 bonus (unlisted) tracks not available on any other format, that may help out to a degree.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Rumours on DVD-A does not exist for me, because ... doesn't have the bonus tracks that the new CD does.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Well, The Final Cut has been out for 20 years or so, so I can't imagine anyone getting pissed about an SACD coming out 2 whole weeks or so before the CD.

 

[Robert A. Willis Jr.]

This may be old news but:

http://www.highfidelityreview.com/ne...umber=18483611

Interesting.

 

[Darryl]

There's a thread about this already here. Bottom line is that the numbers are based on phone interviews with consumers, and that it is likely that DVD-A's numbers were given an artificial boost just because it has "DVD" in its name. Instead of "DVD-Audio Sales Five Times that of SACD Says RIAA Survey", the survey title should be "Although Consumers Typically Bought Neither SACD Nor DVD-Audio, DVD-Audio Five Times More Likely to be Confused With Something the Consumer Actually Purchased".

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Brilliant!

 

[Paul.S]

Lee started this thread before the one you link to, Darryl.

-p

 

[Darryl]

Yes, but this thread wasn't about the survey. The other thread is. Just keeping things on topic where they make sense.

 

[Paul.S]

Darryl:

Why are you seemingly policing a thread you didn't start?

If you read the entire thread, the person who started it (Lee, who posted re the survey in post #152) and other significant participants (myself included) have construed "on topic" rather broadly for the sake of a richer discussion of the state of hi rez and what issues may impact whether some listeners will stick with it or not.

I think it entirely appropriate that Robert Willis post word of the survey. I think either an admin or the thread starter are the most appropriate persons to perhaps take issue with something purportedly not being "on topic."

-p

 

[Darryl]

Sheesh, I didn't know I had to file a petition or flash a badge of authority to post a link to another thread. If people found the survey interesting they might want to know that it's being discussed elsewhere. I consider that a particularly important fact in this case because the survey in question has been debunked as complete crap (for the numbers in that survey to be accurate, stores would need to have sold 40 times more DVD-As than were actually sent to stores last year, kinda impossible). The debunking shouldn't need to be repeated here. No one needs to be an administrator to post an entirely relevant link.



And Michael started a new thread about the survey a full day before it was first mentioned in this thread. Does either fact matter? Not really...

I just don't understand why you're jumping down my throat on this one. The way you've responded to one simple link is MUCH more like policing than anything I posted. Chill out. Please?

 

[Paul.S]

Darryl:

I disagree with the first part of this. If you're not significantly 'speaking,' how can you consider yourself part of an online discussion? It's not like we can see you in the 'room' nodding or shaking your head.

I'm not questioning your right to participate. I'm saying I think it problematic--given all the topics that I, Lee, Michael St. Clair and Justin Lane have discussed in nearly over ten posts to this thread each, some of which are arguably farther afield than the RIAA survey--for you to now weigh in and intimate/say that the survey should not be brought up here just because there's another thread about it (especially when this thread predates the one you linked to--that's my point in my post #153, not what was mentioned where and when and by whom). In other words, if this discussion organically streams/morphs over (and this is a dynamic I have had to get used to in threads I start which then go in other directions) to include/touch on the survey on the heels of everything else that's been discussed herein, then so be it. Intimating/saying that's not appropriate because another dedicated thread exists is what I'm referring to by thread policing.

And for someone who feels the survey doesn't need debunking here, ironically your post #s 151 and 156 give the issue more attention in this thread than any other post since it was first brought up.

-p

 

[Darryl]

This will be my last post to this thread.

My post 151 says that there's another thread about the survey. That's it. It doesn't even hint that it was inappropriate for Willis to mention the survey. I never said that "the survey should not be vetted here." That was not the tone of my post. It was only after you mis-read my intent and then chastized me that I talked about being "on topic", and that was more of a knee-jerk reaction to the mild offense you seemed to have taken to an entirely relevant and appropriate link. If I had realized how strongly you were going to act as the anti-policing police I would have worded that post differently, perhaps like this:



I'm just repeating some numbers Lee posted to another thread. It's an interesting thread. You may want to read it...I posted a link to it yesterday.

 

[Paul.S]

Darryl:

I've read it . . . including Ron's admonition about sarcasm.

-p

 

[Paul.S]

MusicTap interview of Marshall Blonstein (Audio Fidelity)

Excerpt:

"I feel that the audiophile format, and that's what SACD or DVD-A is, will remain a niche market. When CD's came along there hadn't been a new format in 40 years. The CD was completely different than the LP or the cassette. It looked different, it felt different and sounded different. The SACD and the DVD-A does have superior sound but it doesn't look or feel different than the CD. I doubt if the masses are willing to once again buy new equipment and once again get rid of their CDs to buy a new format because of a superior sound. It is the audiophile that cares about a better sound and the audiophile is our niche market."

-p