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

[David_Stein]

heres a dics that i think could do some brisk hirez business with a younger crowd: Beastie Boys' Pauls' Boutique. its known as a classic album among a younger crowd, and its full of densely packed samples and such so that there is a good chance there would be a noticable difference between the redbook and hirez version. some early public enemy would also be good because the bomb squad always made layered compositions. another one would be DJ Shadow's Endtroducing... basically im just trying to think of albums that older people may not think of, but which are considered classics because of their production as much as their beats/rhymes.

just starting with classic hiphop albums in general would be a great place to start in general. get some SACD players in the right hands and let them become a status symbol. now whether or not you are going to be able to tell the difference between formats on hiphop recordings is another story, but i dont think it matters in this instance.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Beastie Boys' Pauls' Boutique. its known as a classic album among a younger crowd, and its full of densely packed samples and such so that there is a good chance there would be a noticable difference between the redbook and hirez version.

I would love to have this album in hirez. I agree that the younger crowd would love it, even us 38 year olds.

 

[Bill Blank]

I just turned 27 today. I have $15,000+ invested in my music/ht system. I have NEVER downloaded an MP3. I AM THE MUSIC INDUSTRY'S TARGET MARKET. I have a whopping 4 hi-rez MCH discs (1 DVD-A, 3 SACD). Titles are:

Oasis - What's The Story Morning Glory
Beck - Sea Change
Pink Floyd - Dark Side Of The Moon
The Beach Boys - Pet Sounds

I want, I NEED, new music in hi-rez MCH. Some recent purchases that I'd have appreciated on hi-rez:

Starsailor - Silence Is Easy
The Strokes - Room On Fire
The Kings Of Leon - Youth and Young Manhood
Super Furry Animals - Phantom Power
The Beatles - Let It Be...Naked
Travis - 12 Memories

Sure they're starting to release discs from current artists, but well after the CD release. Release the next Oasis album only on a hybrid SACD and let me be surprised. Stop giving us second-rate albums from 10, 20, 30 years ago. The Rolling Stones re-release was executed perfectly IMO and the Dylan catalog re-release was well done. The Police? Neil Young? Not what I'd call "A" list acts.

Bill

 

[David_Stein]

you would have been in your mid twenties when pauls boutique's was released. that would be a prime age to get into it. i wouldnt count you among the babyboomers that i think we were talking about. my dad is fiftyone, definitely a babyboomer, and he definitely doesnt appreciate pauls boutique.

 

[Will_B]

And they're sure as hell not going to pay $25 for the Hi-rez.

I must be lucky, because around Boston SACDs and DVDAs are only a couple bucks more than regular CDs. A regular CD (not on sale) would be about $13.99, while an SACD would be $16.99, sometimes less. Sometimes more (Aimee Mann).

So in a sense, prices are staying the same, but the quality got better. I think many potential customers would appreciate that.

As for U2 on SACD, yes indeed. Was wishing the same thing myself. They're probably working on it, given their wealth. It might be time to subscribe to ICE Magazine again...

 

[Darryl]

I think U2 would be the perfect choice for hi-res because they appeal to such a wide range of age groups. They're on Island, right? Which of the hi-res formats would Island end up on?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

So in a sense, prices are staying the same, but the quality got better. I think many potential customers would appreciate that.

I have definitely noticed among SACD and DVDA that prices have left (with the exception of smaller labels) the $20-25 disc price group and are more around $13-17, much more competitive with redbook. Maybe the marketing effort should explain the hybrid nature better on Super Audio as you are getting almost a 2 for 1 deal, same with video clips and such on DVD-Audio.

 

[DaveDickey]

Lee,

Another good thread, congratulations.

I would be interested to know whether Kawakami based his comments on market research that Sony / Phillips has actually conducted, or if his comments are simply his hunch. If the former, then it would be more difficult to dispute his position. After all, Sony has much to lose if he's wrong.

I guess I'm fortunate in that I enjoy a variety of music styles, so I'm not as disappointed as others with the current batch of hi-rez releases. If someone is into rap music or punk rock exclusively, then I can see why they would be frustrated.

Dave

 

[DavidLW]

Lee,

I was making reference to Hi-rez disc with only one or two good cuts. Obviously, DSOTM, Revovler, Rubber Soul and any V.Morrison disc would not be included in this catagory.

 

[Tim Hoover]

Here is my take as a 26-yr old Gen Xer...

Hi-rez seems to be doomed to niche market status due to the niche titles being rolled out in DVD-A and SACD. Carl Miller makes a very good point about the sheer number of formats that DSOTM has been released on. In today's marketplace, any back-catalog title is considered niche. You want to sell millions of copies of a certain SACD? Fine, then press something that will sell millions of copies, not something that consumers have been listening to for 30-odd years. And as far as artists like Miles Davis and Dave Brubeck are concerned, they ARE niche artists.

I'll admit that some headway has been made w/ the release of the Stones and Dylan catalogs, but to the common consumer this is old stuff and therefore not interesting. Consumers don't want to purchase music again that's already been around for 30 years. The current crop of young album-buyers love music. However, they have not been exposed to the wonders of quality music reproduction. Advertise to them, let them know that the music they love can be played in a much better way. Let them know that higher fidelity will bring them emotionally closer to the artists they love.

...and in regards to downloads hurting new album sales: Bullshit! Britney's new album sold 650K copies in its first week. Those are extremely strong numbers, especially considering her albums are bought by teenagers on limited budgets.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

and in regards to downloads hurting new album sales

Well I agree. There was a study on the Stereophile site a year or so ago where they found that downloaders often go out and buy the album and are generally the primary buyers of CDs. The record industry neglects to tell people that fewer titles are being released over the past four years which definitely affects sales. The RIAA has never made a conclusive case for downloading affecting sales. And we all know that poor quality of music plays a big factor as well...it is I think a convenient excuse for them that does not hold up under scrutiny. It is probably a factor in the sales decline but no more than that....

 

[David_Stein]

If you are talking about me, I was in my 20s when it was released. I think Sony is talking about boomers as traditionally defined but also including 30s as well. They appear to not be talking about the main buying group 15-25 years old. I seem to recall reading that the vast majority of HT builders and owners are in their 40s and 50s and are homeowners...

actually i was saying that the age range you were in (probably 20-26/7) was probably the prime age for people to appreciate and get into paul's boutique when it was released.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I just read an interesting fact from the New York Times - apparently people aged 40 and over buy 35% of all recorded music....Maybe the boomer crowd is a great niche to play in....

 

[LanceJ]

I wish people would quit trotting out the Rolling Stones (22 separate albums reissued on sacd!) & DSOTM sales as "proof" that hi-res is selling in large quantities. Since these titles are HYBRIDS no one knows how many sales were for the sacd layer & which sales were for the CD layer. And these albums have always sold consistantly well even on plain ol' CD.

I would say the exact same thing if these titles were on the dvd-audio flipper hybrid. And because there are no dvd-audio hybrids yet, the present sales figures for dvd-audio are much easier to figure out.

LJ

 

[Phil A]

I would dispute the fact that sales of dvd-audio are easy to figure out. Many buy these for the DVD-V portion that can be played. It is probably not a whole lot different that the people who buy hybrids for the CD layer. I have friends and know lots of others who have brought over DVD-A discs to hear it on my system and wanted to know if it sounds any better that the DVD-V DD/DTS mixes they hear on their system. Both hi-res formats are niche markets at this point. SACD had a head start and with that has done a better job at getting more classic titles out there. The general public thinks music is overpriced and neither format will become more mainstream until they reach the financial point of putting out current releases in the formats on a regular basis (e.g. hybrid SACDS, DVD-As) and sell them.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

because there are no dvd-audio hybrids yet, the present sales figures for dvd-audio are much easier to figure out.

Yet there are real limitations to Soundscan, the only available sales system - there are many huge online retailers that do not report sales for either format, so any reported numbers are meaningless.

As I have said many times before, what will drive hirez is the availability of big titles. The success in raw numbers and profits ensure Super Audio will continue to attract big artists, regardless of who is buying what in a single inventory release.

The single inventory release is a brilliant thing because it puts SACDs in the hands of consumers whether they choose them or not AND it puts the albums in the regular aisles where there is good foot traffic. It sure beats the oblong cases of DVD Audio which often don't fit into bins easily as retailers tell me.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I wish people would quit trotting out the Rolling Stones (22 separate albums reissued on sacd!) & DSOTM sales as "proof" that hi-res is selling in large quantities. Since these titles are HYBRIDS no one knows how many sales were for the sacd layer & which sales were for the CD layer. And these albums have always sold consistantly well even on plain ol' CD.

Lance,

You nailed it...dead on. Those who like to tout more profits for such releases have nothing to back their assertion up with. Spread out several times over the last thirty years DSotM has managed to sell over a million annual copies. Fans have craved a proper redbook remastering for the Stones and Dylan for well over a decade. Not only is there zero evidence that sales have had a meaningful increase, but the higher-profit argument ignores higher production and manufacturing costs.

There is no evidence that single-inventory issues (both new and remaster) increase profits a single dime (over the profits of a redbook-only release with the same marketing push). To claim such a 'fact' is absurd.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

but the higher-profit argument ignores higher production and manufacturing costs

The costs are not that higher, under a dollar per disc I am told and as low as a quarter on the big series pressings. And you have to know that the increase in units sold to audiophiles far outweighs the small cost differential. Like the advent of CD, SACD replication costs are dropping fast as new lines come on board and economies of scale and competition kick in.

Plus the industry also looks at return on investment and remastering albums is relatively cheap compared to launching new acts.

For Sony and Philips there is the added incentive of royalty payments on every disc. This financial incentive works wonders for us consumers in getting Sony & Philips to "work" new artists on board.

--------------------------------------

At the end of the day, I don't really care what the nay-sayers think as long as record executives keep signing up new bands and we consumers get more hirez titles and better sonics on our favorite albums.

Something in Super Audioland is working when 20 titles are being mastered EVERY WEEK and the list of prominent artists grows.

Now if I can just get a copy of the Eric Clapton and Mercury Living Presence SACDs...

 

[Tim Hoover]

I think you have to remember that the labels are looking at these numbers and seeing real profits without the required investment that they put into a big Britney production and it's a welcome glimmer of light in an industry of mostly bad news

Now, the "morality" of modern album production budgets is a whole 'nother can of worms entirely. But to get back on track, I'm sure Britney has easily recouped the production budget for her first two albums through those albums' massive redbook sales. There is no reason why her label can't press those in hi-rez as well...

(And in a related footnote, I can't believe I'm actually pushing for more Britney releases. I'm looking for the carbon copy of a contract with Satan right now....)

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I'm sure Britney has easily recouped the production budget for her first two albums through those albums' massive redbook sales

In Britney's case that may be true, but for every Britney there is an $80 million EMI deal for Mariah Carey (Pariah?) or $150 million EMI deal for Robbie Williams.

The problem with the industry is that it takes big risks relative to its cash flow. It bets big on Britney but every Mariah Carey-like deal can wipe out profits instantly. There needs to be some reining in of big upfront dollars to artists. I would like to see a move to "pay for performance" whereby an artist gets a cut of what he/she/they bring in. Without this, it's a big casino night in an industry that is losing its audience to other forms of entertainment.

My point above is that remasterings generally wind up costing a multiple of $100,000 while launching a new act these days requires $millions. If you can sell albums profitably to a boomer niche that has generally high disposable income by putting in say $300K of investment and a bit of marketing, then you are going to attract wide interest from labels to jump into hirez at least on part of their catalog. In other words, the break-even number of units to be sold to recoup investment is far lower and less risky. The higher unit prices and marginal cost increases likely equate to higher profit margins. I know it is true that higher profits exist in SACD vs. redbook for a couple of audiophile labels, for example.

I gotta believe that James Guthrie is having some pleasant conversations with Waters, Gilmour, Wright, etc. on future Pink Floyd albums on hirez. Of course the band members may not be in the same room.

Let's suppose that the Beatles release one or two titles in Super Audio and Pink Floyd releases the Wall in Super Audio. Let's also say (this is a hypothetical ) that universal players start being common or predominate.

If you can get to listen to these albums at the highest possible fidelity (LP excepted), would you not spend $200 on a SACD-capable DVD player? and pick up a better video chip in the process?