For now, 5.1 surround isn't going to carry any format to market success (1 Viewer)

[Rachael B]

Paul, D-VHS just stomps DVD. The difference is dramatic. Going by that, HD-video discs should look splendid but civilians aren't gonna upgrade so fast since they don't even have HD sets, generally, and most of the population doesn't have 20-20 vision. And, people don't like to be hit with new tech too, too often...

 

[Phil A]

I also read (don't know if it is true) that HD software will be about 50% more. So I would expect that not to fuel very rapid adoption by the general public. I also have to agree with Paul, especially given the fact that there are even cheap upconverting DVD players now. VHS was about 240 lines of resolution, not to mention tape playback issues. It is much more of a dramatic difference going to DVD over that kind of quality and I don't see the average public breaking down Circuit City's and Best Buy's doors to spend more money until both prices come down and their current equipment feels obsolete to them. That may be years.

 

[Matt Fisher]

BTW, these points are coming from a 20 year old's view, so take it as you will.

Interesting points, but I think that no matter what a lot of people may think about whether or not there is a *discernable* quality difference from regular stereo to MC, this game right now is TOTALLY about marketability. There is a new product every week that could have some potential, but for one reason or another gets taken out. DVD-A and/or SACD, had it been properly marketed with DVD players to be more of a standard, not something that's available on 1 out of every who knows players, people would say "oh look, I can play DVD-Audio, maybe I'll buy one and check it out." Or, a company like Sony could have included a SACD demo disc in their compatible players.

The conjoined problem, however, is that in order to enjoy a MC audio disc, you need a proper HT setup. Unlike a movie where you can still hear it fine in stereo, there's no sense in buying MC unless you have the proper setup. The problem now, is that there's (in my opinion), 3 types of HT setups - the ridiculously cheap ($100 for an entire system, often with dvd player/receiver), the mid-range ($400-$1000, can sound very good if done right, but still not going to get full potential), and the upscale ($1000+). In order to be successful in the music marketing game, you need to reach youth. The problem? While most have discretionary income from part-time jobs, most aren't saving up for a nice HT system, and putting $15-30 into a single disc.

I've been happily enjoying my HT setup, it's nothing amazing, but considering my amount of "play money", I think I've done a good job. As far as I know, I am the ONLY person of ALL of my friends who listens to DVD-A or SACD.

Solution? Until HT's are in about 25%/more households, this is not a really a product that can be advertised on a mass basis and get the attention most of us care about. Enjoy what's out there and show it off.

 

[PaulDA]

I suppose I should have qualified my statement about hi-def video. I think the upscaling DVD players that are out there will be primarily responsible for slowing down hi-def player sales as the upscaled picture is closer to HD than standard def.

(gotta go, dinner's ready--will return to this later)

 

[Thomas Newton]

Most DVD-Video titles actually have lower-than-CD-quality audio. Dolby Digital and DTS are lossy surround formats.

 

[Rachael B]

Matt, SA-CD & DVD-A are both terrific in stereo. If space and money are a factor, the sound is stille way better even with relatively modest speakers, IMO. Myself, I voluntarily listen to simple-stupid stereo quite alot myself. Two good channels beats 5 mediocre ones in my book.

 

[Matt Fisher]

This can be true, stereo can be quite good, but I think the main draw for enticing people to want to upgrade to hi-res has got to be a little something 'extra' to the listening experience, ie. surround sound. If you said to someone "you should upgrade your DVD player and start spending $20 a disc for a higher resolution recording" most people would probably change the topic like you said nothing. But if you can show them a solid 5.1 recording, it will prove it's not just 'different' but better. Then once people have a good setup, they'll be able to appreciate good stereo recordings too, at least IMO.

 

[Phil_DC]

First;

I don't just think I know Multi channel SACD's and DVD-A's blow away any CD played back with Dolby Prologic I or II @ 5.1.

Second;

I think that it very well could gain both genres better market success if it was marketed right but it is not. The average Joe goes to places like Best Buy, Circuit City for there audio needs. There they might find a SACD or DVD-A kiosk with two speakers and a boat load of store noise as they try to listen. End result they have no clue of the surround sound capability of what they are listening to is nor do they get the full impact of the quality of sound they are listening to.

In fact, other than a couple of highend audio stores I have never seen surround sound setup for demoing either SACD or DVD-A. So just how is the average Joe going to even know what they are missing let alone be enticed to buying in to it.

 

[Rachael B]

Matt, nobody wants to spend $20 an album day in and day out. It won't matter what format we're talking about, have, or will be. Having surround on a disc is OK and it certainy appeals to a certain market segment, namely audio-vidiots like us. Title is what sells to tourists. "Oh look there's Kenny G., look he has a shirt like mine, he's so kool!" Unquestionably, surround music has a future to grow into. When you hang out on boards like this one and the many others, you can slip into a false sense of what everybody does. Many of us are the only ones with surround sound on our streets. Home theatre is growing but everybody doesn't have it. That's about my point...

 

[Rachael B]

Phil, if the musick kompanies wanna sell a new format, IMO, they'll have to go on TV and beat folks over the head with ads. I like stereo just as much as M/C myself. The majority of my listening is stereo because it sounds better when you're not sitting passively in the centre of a theatre set-up. I'm workin' around the house and listenin' and whistlin' whilst I work. People like to work and work-out to music...

 

[Lewis Besze]

I don't know where your information comes from, but CEDIA reported years ago that 30% of US houshold has a surround system that consists 5 speakers or more.Subwoofers were the top selling single HT components,growing 30-50% sales each years,and like I said, I've read this about 5 years ago in S&V.I can only imagine that the numbers are way higher now.

 

[Rachael B]

Lewis, whatever % it is, it's not enough to be a really big factor yet. I know 2 people who got home-theatres-in-a-box that just disconnected the surround and centre speakers because they were crap. I imagine alot of that has gone on. We are moving towards being a HT nation but...

Your info makes me want to design and build subwoofers.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Lewis- 5 years ago was 2000, and DVD came on the scene in 1997 or so. No way I believe that 30% of all households had 5.1 systems back then. Shoot, if I look at my friends (and I live and work in the tech-concentrated Silicon Valley), it is more like 10% even now.

 

[Gary->dee]

Coming from someone who is curious about hi-rez audio but has no intentions of pursuing it, I can tell you that:

1)Normal music CDs are already too damn expensive. At this point people are downloading music for less or free let alone hiking up the price of music for a higher quality format. I don't care if hearing Dark Side in true 5.1 is akin to having sex, chances are I'm not going to upgrade to a more expensive format because...

2)I would have to also buy a new player to hear the SACD or DVD-A discs on top of re-purchasing whatever CDs I already have if they're available in a hi-res format. I, and I suspect a lot of other people my age and older, are already having to eventuall re-purchase music they've already owned in formats like record albums, casette tapes, hell maybe even 8-track. Now it's time to ditch CDs for SACD or DVD-As? Good luck with that pitch.

3)If you own a 5.1 HT system chances are the receiver will have numerous sound modes, one of which might be 5 channel stereo. While it might not be true 5.1, to a lot of people like myself it's adequate because...

4)I'm not an audiophile and the truth is not everyone is an audiophile and there will always be a new format that caters to audiophiles, just like Quadrophonic sound in the 70's.

5)A lot of people don't even have a HT system. Just because a lot of us here do, we shouldn't be blinded to the fact that a lot of people still do not. An HT system is still a luxury.

6)If manufacturers really wanted the hi-res music format to catch on there would have been waaaay better marketing for it. As it is if I didn't see the weird-shaped or special boxes in the stores or read about it here I wouldn't know it even existed.

So bottom line is it's too expensive in terms of software and hardware, not everyone owns an HT system, and not everyone is an audiophile. Those 3 points alone will eventually cause the demise of hi-res music. The general public isn't ready for it and I doubt they will be for another 5-10 years if even then.

If they priced the new formats the same price if not cheaper than normal CDs in order to entice consumers then you might get people to consider it. Even then they'd be turned off at having to buy new equipment. If you remove that factor, coupled with lower priced music, then you'd move from consideration to thinking about getting it. I haven't even touched on the issue of what is actually available. But even then you'd be hard-pressed to sway people from downloading to actually purchasing of music.

There's simply too many things working against the wide spread adoptation of the hi-res music format.

 

[Lewis Besze]

You're free to believe anything you want my friend, I didn't make it up.If I told you that many of my friends have full blown HT's would that "cancell" your "survey" among your friends out?I see this all the time people try to "judge" the whole country based on of their cirle of friends, misleading at best!

 

[Lewis Besze]

Luxury? Have you looked at the prices lately?It's probably harder not to find a real good deal on an HTIB and a 27" or even 32" TV. Unless you qualify an HT as a front projector and seperates set up with full range speakers, and Velodyne sub only.

 

[Gary->dee]

Price isn't the only factor when deciding whether or not to delve into the world of HT. Space is an issue, the configuration of a dwelling, how much room someone has to spare for four speakers whether wall-mounted or on stands along with a subwoofer. That's not even getting into the matter of TV screen size(27" isn't really adequate for a room bigger than a walk-in closet).

Then there's also the matter of the type of dwelling, apartment, condo or house. Obviously if you live in a house you probably don't have any concern, but if you're in an apartment you may have to consider whether you can own an HT and not constantly piss off neighbors or get evicted for that matter.

Btw I forgot one other thing from my list above.

7) Most CD's of old or new music have very good engineering/mastering jobs that would allow someone with an HT to experience near-true 5.1 sound ala SACD or DVD-A. A lot of older CD's have been remastered(and continue to be) allowing for much better sound quality. For example I mentioned Dark Side of the Moon; the regular CD sounds pretty damn good in 5.1 as it is because it was originally engineered so good.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Lewis- I would like you to dig up the exact reference from Cedia, otherwise personally, I don't believe it.

Mail carriers, engineers, nurses, police, cable installers, people who work at McDonalds, Burger King, etc, retail workers at Sears, Starbucks, sanitation workers, plumbers, mechanics, etc. 30%? That's 1 out of 3. I think not. There has to be some additional qualification to that statistic.

Many of my friends *do* have full blown systems. But a heck of a lot more of them don't.

 

[Matt Fisher]

In response to Gary->dee's comments, I don't think this is a format that will take hold of the market completely, though I wish it would. I see it more of an addition to my CD collection. I only own a handful of DVD-A's but whenever I see something that really interests me, I will buy it. I still do buy regular CD's, but if it's available in DVD-A, I go for that for sure. You do have to realize that once DVD became a home video standard, everyone had to upgrade their VCRs. Regular CD's have been the standard since what like the late-80's or something? That's about 20 years, I'm not sure that asking for an upgrade every 20 years is too much. You can get a decent sounding Pioneer or Sony HTIB for like $350 now a days. I bought my JVC DVD-Audio compatible DVD player on eBay for $35. If the average American can afford to upgrade their entire record, cassette, 8-track collection as you say, surely they can afford a few hundred to get better quality. That is, after all, why they upgraded their collection, no? No one has to throw out their CD's, just as a lot of people still have their VHS tapes, but when a legit opportunity like hi-res comes along at a pretty affordable price (which would drop if it was bought on a mass scale), I don't see why not go for it.

 

[Brian L]

Well, maybe not.

I think quality (as in Sound Quality) was only a small part of it, and not the deciding factor. Convenience and portability (CD vs. LP) and perceived longevity and damage resistance of the new media were the real reasons, IMHO.

And once the idea of a small optical disc took hold w/CD, the leap to DVD was much easier to make.

Its pretty much excepted that quality is not a saleable attribute, at least for for most folks. There are always enthusiasts (no matter what the product; audio gear, automobiles, watches, etc.) for whom quality is paramount, but those consumers are a small blip on the radar.

Since to the general public, our beloved hi-rez formats were still the same media as came before (more or less), they were forced to stand on quality and the perception of additional value (MC sound, video content in the case of DVD-A), but neither of which were strong enough to propel these formats into the mainstream.

I once read that a confused public buys nothing. How true. SACD, DVD-A, DualDisc.....only an enthusiast buyer can tell the difference, or care.

My only hope is that I will continue to be able to buy true hi-rez MC media in either DVD-A or SACD. To me, putting a full up DVD-A and a CD in the same box (and NOT gouging on the price) would be perfect, and in a perfect world, would be the standard for new releases.

Thank you, REM and Beck for understanding that.

BGL