DVD-Audio backers - What Happened?

[jimby]

In plain BA terms, the music and electronics corporations failed to define the product and did not understand the market. It's a remarkably conservative business, if the automotive industry behaved like this, we'd still have our spare wheels bolted to the trunk lid and be signalling the turns with our hands out through the window.

That's not entirely true as I recounted in an early post in this thread. There were many circumstances that were beyond the control of both CE and music industry. If there was a miscalculation made, it was thinking that there would be a larger market for surround music product. The iPod put the nail in that box.

And btw, the automotive industry is conservative because the design-to-production cycle on a new car model is 4-5 years. That's why cars still have CD players, but very few have hard drives.

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

If there was a miscalculation made, it was thinking that the public would invest in new formats that had competing formats and no promise of a future, slim pickings when it came to titles to choose from, and barely any promotion. As far as there not being a large market for surround music product, no one has demonstrated whether or not that is true.

Why is it the movie industry has found a way to put a surround mix on just about every dvd on the shelf in the stores, any TV show has a 5.1 mix, and even TV commercials have surround mixes, but the music industry can't find a way to do this? Is there really more of a market for 5.1 commercial jingles then there is for music?

Give me a break.

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

I play DTS and AC-3 out of my Squeezebox all the time.

Tell me more. What is streaming in dts or ac3 that you are tuning into on your sqeezebox? This sounds like great stuff, I definitely want to know how to do this, and what is already doing this.

 

[BananaSlug]

The SqueezeBox has a S/Pdif output. I have lots of the 'old' DTS quad conversions on my HDD and can stream them to my AVR. I don't use it much now, as most of my favorite quad recordings have been upgraded to DVD-A.

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

Oh, I see, that's cool. I was thinking more about the possibility of someone providing an ac3 or dts radio stream that someone would tune into on the squeezebox. I do want to bring surround-o-phonic back someday, and if I do, I want to do it in a way that can easily be tuned into on equipment already in people's houses. So, if I can stream in ac3, and people can get that in on devices such as a squeezebox or ps3, that would really be something cool.

 

[Chiburb]

If there was a miscalculation made, it was thinking that the public would invest in new formats that had competing formats and no promise of a future, slim pickings when it came to titles to choose from, and barely any promotion. As far as there not being a large market for surround music product, no one has demonstrated whether or not that is true.

Why is it the movie industry has found a way to put a surround mix on just about every dvd on the shelf in the stores, any TV show has a 5.1 mix, and even TV commercials have surround mixes, but the music industry can't find a way to do this? Is there really more of a market for 5.1 commercial jingles then there is for music?

Give me a break.

No disrespect intended, but as a newbie to MC and this board I have to say this:
I appreciate jimby's insights very much. He's explained, in great detail and patience, why the planets alligned against the format(s). Yet you keep coming back with "opinions" that are sarcastic, argumentitive, and supply no refutation to anything the industry insider has posted. Why he continues to participate here is beyond me

Sorry (in advance) if this is "bad form", but I just don't get it.

 

[Chiburb]

Planets, not plants.

 

[atrocity]

Why is it the movie industry has found a way to put a surround mix on just about every dvd on the shelf in the stores, any TV show has a 5.1 mix, and even TV commercials have surround mixes, but the music industry can't find a way to do this?

Because the surround sound is just along for the ride on a DVD. Most people are buying the movie and couldn't care less about the audio format or bonus features. The manufacturers don't need any kind of dual inventory to provide the fancy audio to those of us who want it, we're just lucky because it isn't any real additional work for them to provide it.

We *could* have had the same situation with hybrid SACD, but...

 

[atrocity]

Tell me more. What is streaming in dts or ac3 that you are tuning into on your sqeezebox?

The Squeezebox will cheerfully work with material ripped from DTS CDs. It's also possible, if a bit more complicated, to put DVD-sourced AC-3 and DTS into a FLAC "wrapper" that the Squeezebox will see as a normal FLAC file but a receiver will understand and decode.

 

[ArnoldLayne]

That's not entirely true as I recounted in an early post in this thread. There were many circumstances that were beyond the control of both CE and music industry. If there was a miscalculation made, it was thinking that there would be a larger market for surround music product. The iPod put the nail in that box.

And btw, the automotive industry is conservative because the design-to-production cycle on a new car model is 4-5 years. That's why cars still have CD players, but very few have hard drives.

Oh, I'm noy saying the industry didn't want to sell hires surround, neither am I denying it was a tough case to make it profitable. But I think we should look a little further upon how it all was done. The industry ended up promoting back-catalog instead of creating synergies between new music and new formats. It also spent the R&D budget on DRM instead of digital audio interconnect. Those were company decisions that both impoverished the product and withdrew power of choice from the market. Hence, SACD and DVD-A were inevitably scaled down to odd niche formats. Which leads to an interesting point upon which I would definitely appreciate your comments: Were there ever any serious plans for simultaneous DVD-A and CD releases for new mainstream albums and if so, were they discarded due to sales estimates or other reasons?

If there was a miscalculation made, it was thinking that the public would invest in new formats that had competing formats and no promise of a future, slim pickings when it came to titles to choose from, and barely any promotion. As far as there not being a large market for surround music product, no one has demonstrated whether or not that is true.

Why is it the movie industry has found a way to put a surround mix on just about every dvd on the shelf in the stores, any TV show has a 5.1 mix, and even TV commercials have surround mixes, but the music industry can't find a way to do this? Is there really more of a market for 5.1 commercial jingles then there is for music?

Give me a break.

I think having multiple format war wasn't bad, there's nothing wrong with pluralism and we were provided with multi-format systems. But Sony and SACD reinforced the back-catalog and DRM issues I mentioned above.

Because the surround sound is just along for the ride on a DVD. Most people are buying the movie and couldn't care less about the audio format or bonus features. The manufacturers don't need any kind of dual inventory to provide the fancy audio to those of us who want it, we're just lucky because it isn't any real additional work for them to provide it.

We *could* have had the same situation with hybrid SACD, but...

Most people I know either have a Home Theater or wish they had one. Movie surround is today quite established in people's minds.

 

[jimby]

The industry ended up promoting back-catalog instead of creating synergies between new music and new formats.

I am not sure what you mean with that statement. We had a number of new title releases on DVD-A as well as back catalog. If you think that baby bands or unproven acts are going to sell a new format, then I think you don't have full understanding about the relationship the music industry has with CE companies, retailers, or artists. Retailers generally don't want to devote bin space to unproven acts on new formats; the quick demise of so many independent record stores basically meant that there are only a few retailers left controlling physical format distribution.

It also spent the R&D budget on DRM instead of digital audio interconnect. Those were company decisions that both impoverished the product and withdrew power of choice from the market.

Again, I can't figure out what you are trying to say. We (the labels) didn't spend "R&D money" on DRM; the CPPM technology on DVD-A is licensed and developed by the 4C (IBM, Intel, Toshiba, Matsushita). SACD copy protection was developed by Sony and Philips. Both of these technologies were simply licensed to the music industry.

Once again, the music industry generally does not develop CE technology, so you comment about digital interconnects is a mystery to me.

Hence, SACD and DVD-A were inevitably scaled down to odd niche formats. Which leads to an interesting point upon which I would definitely appreciate your comments: Were there ever any serious plans for simultaneous DVD-A and CD releases for new mainstream albums and if so, were they discarded due to sales estimates or other reasons?

We did have simultaneous, or near simultaneous releases of DVD-A or SACD product with CD releases; just off the top of my head I can think of: Sting- Sacred Love, NIN-With Teeth, Diana Krall - Girl in the Other Room, Beck - Sea Change, Guero, etc.

Let me repeat myself here: DVD-A and SACD were discontinued because they didn't sell.

The public yawned.

No amount of revisionist history will change that fact that there was virtually no pull from the market wanting these products. If there had been even a glimmer of success, we would be making the discs today, but there wasn't. Zilch.

Everybody wanted iPods and portable music. Physical formats started a long decline that will eventually end with the demise of the CD in the future (or its relegation to niche status).

 

[mch007]

Let me repeat myself here: DVD-A and SACD were discontinued because they didn't sell.

The public yawned.

Jimby,

I agree with most of your points.

However, do you think all the customers (let talk about only people who buy physical format) knew about these formats?
I think there were not enough advertisement. Every DVD (ok 98% may be) I rented in last 3 years essentially had an advertisement for Blu-ray.
I remember SACDs having some short of advertisements about SACD technology, but they could be seen only by the people who
1) Accidentally bought SACD or
2) Already know about the format

It might have made more sense to advertise within redbook cds to get some converts & increase some awareness.

I think, if most people yawned, it is NOT because they knew about DVD-A, SACD formats and were not interested. Some people knew but had doubt about the future of the format, but most just did not know...Offcouse they were also some who did not want to spend a few extra dollars.

Moreover releasing in 1 disc DVD-A only & Single layer SACD were also not smartest of the moves considering the hardware issue. (I feel Blu-ray managed to overcome that partly because of the huge awareness it was able to achieve through ad)

As an industry insider you should have more knowledge, but I have spoken with people & friends, they just did not have the awareness.

I also understand that industry were not ready to take a blu-ray type advertisement spree unless they get some encouragement from music buyers, so I am not really alleging...

 

[JonUrban]

Jimby,

What was wrong with the "Special Limited Edition" CD+DVD-Audio package as being a way to get the product out there? Buyer gets a CD with a DVD plus the HiRez surround guy gets his DVD-A, and the non-HiRez guys gets 5.1 from DTS or DD. It would seem that a decision to go this way instead of the stupidly put together DualDisc would have allowed advertising dollars to be spent that would have not been soley spent on HiRez 5.1.

If all DVD-Audio's were sold like the Flaming Lips discs, there may have been more acceptance.

I know that having a bonus disc just sitting there in someone's collection has a way of generating curiousity that might lead to a HiRez decision on a future player purchase.

I know, water under the bridge, but really there should have been more thought to the whole mess before everyone jumped on the DualDisc bandwagon. Like I've said all along, the SACD was already the perfect "DualDisc".

 

[jimby]

Jimby,

What was wrong with the "Special Limited Edition" CD+DVD-Audio package as being a way to get the product out there? Buyer gets a CD with a DVD plus the HiRez surround guy gets his DVD-A, and the non-HiRez guys gets 5.1 from DTS or DD. It would seem that a decision to go this way instead of the stupidly put together DualDisc would have allowed advertising dollars to be spent that would have not been soley spent on HiRez 5.1.

If all DVD-Audio's were sold like the Flaming Lips discs, there may have been more acceptance.

I know that having a bonus disc just sitting there in someone's collection has a way of generating curiousity that might lead to a HiRez decision on a future player purchase.

I know, water under the bridge, but really there should have been more thought to the whole mess before everyone jumped on the DualDisc bandwagon. Like I've said all along, the SACD was already the perfect "DualDisc".

It wouldn't have made any difference. There is a common perception on this forum that if only the music companies would have done A, B, and C, the formats would have been successful.

It didn't matter. There were events happening in the music and CE worlds that doomed those formats, and there was virtually nothing that the music companies could have done to fix the situation.

Basically the problem is that most people do not listen to music the way the forum members do here. For most people it's earbuds, or the stereo, while they are doing something else (cooking, vacuuming, chatting online, driving, whatever). The whole concept of sitting in one place and listening to a physical album with your head locked in the sweet spot is anachronistic for the new generation of music buyers. Sorry.

 

[jimby]

Jimby,

I agree with most of your points.

However, do you think all the customers (let talk about only people who buy physical format) knew about these formats?
I think there were not enough advertisement. Every DVD (ok 98% may be) I rented in last 3 years essentially had an advertisement for Blu-ray.
I remember SACDs having some short of advertisements about SACD technology, but they could be seen only by the people who
1) Accidentally bought SACD or
2) Already know about the format

It might have made more sense to advertise within redbook cds to get some converts & increase some awareness.

I think, if most people yawned, it is NOT because they knew about DVD-A, SACD formats and were not interested. Some people knew but had doubt about the future of the format, but most just did not know...Offcouse they were also some who did not want to spend a few extra dollars.

Moreover releasing in 1 disc DVD-A only & Single layer SACD were also not smartest of the moves considering the hardware issue. (I feel Blu-ray managed to overcome that partly because of the huge awareness it was able to achieve through ad)

As an industry insider you should have more knowledge, but I have spoken with people & friends, they just did not have the awareness.

I also understand that industry were not ready to take a blu-ray type advertisement spree unless they get some encouragement from music buyers, so I am not really alleging...

See this post.

 

[mch007]

Basically the problem is that most people do not listen to music the way the forum members do here. For most people it's earbuds, or the stereo, while they are doing something else (cooking, vacuuming, chatting online, driving, whatever). The whole concept of sitting in one place and listening to a physical album with your head locked in the sweet spot is anachronistic for the new generation of music buyers. Sorry.

Sad but true. IMHO, it is really one of the main points why we can't compare surround music consumption with surround movie consumption by general public.

However I still believe surround sound can make a comeback. If not SACD, DVD-A, then some other formats, If not now, then may be after 5 years
If vinyl can make a comeback (just going by the number of release in this format compared to 3-4 years back...don't know how are they selling), it can too...

A specific title will not sell million, but thousands seems reasonable to me. Is Pink Floyd's DSOTM highest selling surround title? Just curious, how much did that sell?

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

However I still believe surround sound can make a comeback. If not SACD, DVD-A, then some other formats, If not now, then may be after 5 years
If vinyl can make a comeback (just going by the number of release in this format compared to 3-4 years back...don't know how are they selling), it can too...

Sorry, but Surround Sound music was never mainstream for years like the LP was/is.
So, how could it make a comeback that never was?

 

[timbre4]

Riddle me this Batman (anyone)

What I want to know is, if this is the universal truth, how is it, in this earbudded multi-tasking world we currently inhabit, some reasonable* number of music fans actually sit and fully listen to their NEW vinyl records? Maybe it just goes along with martinis and cigars on the trendy scale or is it?

*Reasonable = enough audience identified that labels increasingly create product for

As stated above at least once, people can't refuse what they never were told about. Single inventory would have been the only way to change the model and the timing was dead wrong. Everything that went magically right for DVD-V later went wrong for DVD-A & SACD.

The vinyl crowd gets their cake and we get "closed for the winter".

 

[jimby]

Sad but true. IMHO, it is really one of the main points why we can't compare surround music consumption with surround movie consumption by general public.

However I still believe surround sound can make a comeback. If not SACD, DVD-A, then some other formats, If not now, then may be after 5 years
If vinyl can make a comeback (just going by the number of release in this format compared to 3-4 years back...don't know how are they selling), it can too...

A specific title will not sell million, but thousands seems reasonable to me. Is Pink Floyd's DSOTM highest selling surround title? Just curious, how much did that sell?

If surround music makes a comeback, it will most likely be through downloads. Cutting out the physical distribution costs will help, but then again consumers may be interested in buying only one track from an album, so if it does happen, it might be album-only downloads. It's hard to make the financial's work when you sell single tracks. (See my posts on dis-aggregation of album tracks earlier in this thread.)

If and when the album goes away, then perhaps single surround sound mixes will be financially feasible.

 

[jimby]

Riddle me this Batman (anyone)

What I want to know is, if this is the universal truth, how is it, in this earbudded multi-tasking world we currently inhabit, some reasonable* number of music fans actually sit and fully listen to their NEW vinyl records? Maybe it just goes along with martinis and cigars on the trendy scale or is it?

*Reasonable = enough audience identified that labels increasingly create product for

As stated above at least once, people can't refuse what they never were told about. Single inventory would have been the only way to change the model and the timing was dead wrong. Everything that went magically right for DVD-V later went wrong for DVD-A & SACD.

The vinyl crowd gets their cake and we get "closed for the winter".

Single inventory would have broken the financial models. Vinyl is cheap for the labels to make... there is no expensive surround sound mix to pay for. I've said all of this earlier in this thread.

We are beating a very dead horse.