DVD-Audio backers - What Happened?

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Yet it did not kill DVD-Video.........

What is obvious in hindsight was not at all obvious then. This was in 1999-2000.

DVD-Video was replacing VHS. It was a huge leap.

DVD-Audio was supposed to replace CDs. Not such a big leap.
 
As far as marketing, remember, there were not many ads for Blu-ray until the format war was over and HD-DVD had lost. DVD-A had a competitor in SACD, and Sony Music refused to put out their titles on DVD-A (under corporate direction from their parent). It would be as if Warner Bros still refused to put out titles on Blu-ray.

Warner was neutral at the start of the Blu-ray vs. HD DVD format war, releasing most titles on both formats with a rare release exclusive to HD DVD and even rarer release exclusive to Blu-ray with a big majority released on both formats using identical encodes. When Warner dropped support for HD DVD, that ended that format war. There was no way Sony was ever going to release a DVD-A nor was Warner ever going to release an SACD in the US. Panasonic never made an SACD player and Sony never made a DVD-A player so the DVD-A vs. SACD format war was not going to have a resolution and neither format would ever amount to much.

Chris
 
Jimby,

Am I wrong in thinking that the DualDisc helped tank DVD-Audio? I mean, at first, as "fans", we were told the DualDisc was conceived to allow DVD-A discs to play in CD players, giving the consumer something they could use everywhere. However, the DualDisc had no requirement to have a DVD-A side. It turned out that most of them had "Enhanced" stereo at 16/48, or something similar, as the DVD-A DualDiscs were sought after by DVD-A fans (Brothers in Arms, Slippery When Wet, Talking Heads), the non-DVD-A Dualdiscs seemed to cause no stir at all.

The fact that Sony jumped on the DualDisc deal was puzzling. Did they do it to help torpedo DVD-Audio, or were they really interested. Their Dualdiscs conflicted directly with their own SACDs (John Mayer, etc), and signaled not just the end of DVD-A, but the termination of their own format as well.

A very curious move, going to Dualdisc. As an afterthought, I always preferred the "Deluxe Edition" approach, like WB did with the Flaming Lips, Morph the Cat, Running on Empty, Songs for Beginners, the R.E.M. discs, Seal's, and Capitol's "Love".

The way the majors "throw in" a DVD-V with a Blu-Ray purchase for a movie these days, you would think that putting a CD in with a DVD-A and charging extra would have made everyone happy.
 
A very curious move, going to Dualdisc. As an afterthought, I always preferred the "Deluxe Edition" approach, like WB did with the Flaming Lips, Morph the Cat, Running on Empty, Songs for Beginners, the R.E.M. discs, Seal's, and Capitol's "Love".

The way the majors "throw in" a DVD-V with a Blu-Ray purchase for a movie these days, you would think that putting a CD in with a DVD-A and charging extra would have made everyone happy.

Didn't they do this exact same thing in the UK?
At least, I seen the Talking Heads releases sold as double discs compared to the Dualdisc in the US.
Great discussion!
Keep it going.:D
 
Jimby,

Am I wrong in thinking that the DualDisc helped tank DVD-Audio? I mean, at first, as "fans", we were told the DualDisc was conceived to allow DVD-A discs to play in CD players, giving the consumer something they could use everywhere. However, the DualDisc had no requirement to have a DVD-A side. It turned out that most of them had "Enhanced" stereo at 16/48, or something similar, as the DVD-A DualDiscs were sought after by DVD-A fans (Brothers in Arms, Slippery When Wet, Talking Heads), the non-DVD-A Dualdiscs seemed to cause no stir at all.

The fact that Sony jumped on the DualDisc deal was puzzling. Did they do it to help torpedo DVD-Audio, or were they really interested. Their Dualdiscs conflicted directly with their own SACDs (John Mayer, etc), and signaled not just the end of DVD-A, but the termination of their own format as well.

A very curious move, going to Dualdisc. As an afterthought, I always preferred the "Deluxe Edition" approach, like WB did with the Flaming Lips, Morph the Cat, Running on Empty, Songs for Beginners, the R.E.M. discs, Seal's, and Capitol's "Love".

The way the majors "throw in" a DVD-V with a Blu-Ray purchase for a movie these days, you would think that putting a CD in with a DVD-A and charging extra would have made everyone happy.

Just for the record, I hated Dual Disc. The problem with Dual Disc is that the sandwich combo of discs was initially too thick (it violated the maximum allowed thickness of 1.5mm). So the replicators started futzing with it to make it thinner. They did this by thinning down the CD layer so that it was out of (Red Book) spec. This caused the pits on the CD layer to appear out of focus to the player's OPU (optical pickup unit). So to address that problem, they made the pits physically larger so the (now myopic) OPU could read them. Because the pits were now larger, fewer of them could be put on a disc, so the max running time was about 60-65 min. The whole thing, in my humble opinion, was a kludge, and we could never really guarantee that the CD layer would work in every player. The manufacturers responded with warnings about compatibility with their players, which helped sink the format (among numerous other issues, such as lack of marketing funds, etc.)

Sony Music jumped on Dual Disc because SACD was tanking, and remember, Sony Music went through several changes of ownership at this time (being owned by BMG at one point). But they still refused to make their DD with a DVD-A layer.

As far as including a CD with a DVD-A, that was a non-starter because of the extra expense, and the fact that the whole market was moving to MP3s. It was just not going to happen. The comparisons with the movie industry are imperfect because they are not the same products, and movies and music have different consumer expectations.

Don't you guys get tired of talking about all this ancient history? :)
 
Warner was neutral at the start of the Blu-ray vs. HD DVD format war, releasing most titles on both formats with a rare release exclusive to HD DVD and even rarer release exclusive to Blu-ray with a big majority released on both formats using identical encodes. When Warner dropped support for HD DVD, that ended that format war. There was no way Sony was ever going to release a DVD-A nor was Warner ever going to release an SACD in the US. Panasonic never made an SACD player and Sony never made a DVD-A player so the DVD-A vs. SACD format war was not going to have a resolution and neither format would ever amount to much.

Chris

Sorry, I meant Universal Studios, not Warner.
 
Just for the record, I hated Dual Disc.

I hated DualDisc too! :phones

.......As far as including a CD with a DVD-A, that was a non-starter because of the extra expense, and the fact that the whole market was moving to MP3s. .....

If a label could sell a DVD-A disc for, say $18.99, to add a CD to the package and charge $25, wouldn't that work? There were quite a few of these, with "Love" probably being the most popular. It seems to me that would have been the perfect way to get the money back from the people who wanted the DVD-A, and having the product 100% compatible.

Anyway, as you say, the the old H2O under the walkway.

Don't you guys get tired of talking about all this ancient history? :)

No! :smokin

Actually, we all REALLY appreciate the insight. It's easy to think that we know what's going on and what should be done, but of course we don't. Hearing from people like you and Bob Vosgien (and Neil Wilkes too!) really makes me feel that this place is worth doing.

And for that I say "THANKS!" (y)
 
If the added expense of having a 2 disc set killed dvd-a/cd combos, then I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky we get any 2 CD deluxe editions of certain albums.
 
I still say it doesn't have to be too late for dvd-a. It can be a great format, can support various sample rates and bit rates, and with the ability to add dvd-v content can be easily backwards compatible with the many home theater systems out there, and with the 5.1 and quad mixes just sitting in the vaults, there is a ton of material ready to go, and plenty of multi-tracks just waiting for remixing.

All the labels would have to do is grow a pair, and use the technology just waiting to be used.

Instead, we sit in the dark ages with CD, and inferior less than CD quality file formats. The labels just don't get it, it's not about the music to them.
 
I still say it doesn't have to be too late for dvd-a. It can be a great format, can support various sample rates and bit rates, and with the ability to add dvd-v content can be easily backwards compatible with the many home theater systems out there, and with the 5.1 and quad mixes just sitting in the vaults, there is a ton of material ready to go, and plenty of multi-tracks just waiting for remixing.

All the labels would have to do is grow a pair, and use the technology just waiting to be used.

Instead, we sit in the dark ages with CD, and inferior less than CD quality file formats. The labels just don't get it, it's not about the music to them.

You must have totally missed the points I made earlier in this thread. There are not enough people who care about Hi-Res audio or surround music to make the format viable. It doesn't matter how great the technology is, or how many masters are sitting in the vault. Selling 5k or 10k units of any format is not a viable option for the labels. If it were 100k units, it might make more sense, but we rarely sell that many units of DVD video concerts (even top name acts). At some point reality has to kick in (and it's usually on Wednesday mornings when we look at the Soundscan numbers for the previous week.)
 
Sorry, I meant Universal Studios, not Warner.

Of course that makes sense and Universal's exclusive HD DVD support, the lone major studio to do that at the start of the format war was probably the reason the format war lasted as long as it did. If Universal had been neutral or exclusively Blu-ray, the results would have been so lopsided that the towel would have been thrown much earlier.

Chris
 
I don't know if there's a specific Thread on this already, but If DVD-A (DVD-Audio) or SACD (SA-CD) were to make a comeback, which format would you choose?
Up until last year, I was a die-hard 2-channel audio nut until I purchased my first AVR.
After purchasing my AVR, I discovered Room Correction, and would choose DVD-A because all SACD (DSD) is converted to PCM anyway prior to RC.
 
Jimby,
Thank you very much for your help and giving us the “inside baseball” as to what happened from the record companies point of view. It’s needed and greatly appreciated. We’re all sitting at our computers wondering what happened to DVD-A/SACD as we listen to the greatest mixes and sound quality (including Stereo) that has ever been invented in the history of music (until the Blu-ray era).

#1 Question of great concern many of us here have:

Are the record companies taking proper care of Master Multi-track Tapes and Quadraphonic/Stereo Master mixes Tapes in their vaults from decades past by transferring them to digital form so the material is not lost to the ravages of time? Or do they need a profit incentive to do this?

Again, thank you for your help.

Jim
 
You must have totally missed the points I made earlier in this thread. There are not enough people who care about Hi-Res audio or surround music to make the format viable. It doesn't matter how great the technology is, or how many masters are sitting in the vault. Selling 5k or 10k units of any format is not a viable option for the labels. If it were 100k units, it might make more sense, but we rarely sell that many units of DVD video concerts (even top name acts). At some point reality has to kick in (and it's usually on Wednesday mornings when we look at the Soundscan numbers for the previous week.)

I disagree. I think the labels could have sold enough to be profitable, easily. But the only way they could have done that is to have actually backed the format with enough titles for people to buy into it. I can't buy what the labels won't sell me.

It may be that the labels can't sell enough to make the profit that they feel is necessary for it to be worthwhile. I can't help but feel like it's corporate greed that drove the decision to dump dvd-a.

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate you sharing the inside views that drove some decisions that I feel are poor decisions. And I hope you don't feel like I'm attacking or flaming here. I'm just trying to share my strong opinions. I just find it hard to believe that, while the industry continues to make a profit selling CDs, DVDs, home theater systems, speakers, vinyl, turntables, that the industry is completely unable to find a way at all to make any profit selling high resolution discs. I just feel like it's really corporate greed that drove the decisions to abandoned the dvd-a format, and I still can't help but feel backstabbed by the industry that I supported.

I wish someone would have some balls, and give dvd-a a real launch. How many titles did the CD launch with? How many for dvd-a?
 
#1 Question of great concern many of us here have:

Are the record companies taking proper care of Master Multi-track Tapes and Quadraphonic/Stereo Master mixes Tapes in their vaults from decades past by transferring them to digital form so the material is not lost to the ravages of time? Or do they need a profit incentive to do this?

Again, thank you for your help.

Jim

Any masters finished in the last 15 years or so are probably in good shape. We have all that stuff preserved either digitally, or on robust analog formats. I really can't comment on quad mixes from the early 70s. I don't know what we have, and I have never done a vault listing to see what turns up. That is just before the tape binder problems started to infiltrate recordings in the late 70s (resulting in oxide flaking off, and tapes needing to be baked), so I assume any quad masters we have are probably ok (if they can be found!)

We've had to deal in the last 10 years with problems like the gradual disappearance of 3M digital audio recorders from the early 80s. (We had to fly an engineer to Minnesota to spend a few days in a former 3M engineer's basement transferring a bunch of the Steely Dan masters to modern 96/24 PCM format.)

That is not to say that everything is preserved and nothing is lost, but we try our best.
 
I disagree. I think the labels could have sold enough to be profitable, easily. But the only way they could have done that is to have actually backed the format with enough titles for people to buy into it. I can't buy what the labels won't sell me.

It may be that the labels can't sell enough to make the profit that they feel is necessary for it to be worthwhile. I can't help but feel like it's corporate greed that drove the decision to dump dvd-a.

:mad:@: You're right. I have no idea what I am talking about.
 
Can we please get back on track? We're lucky enough to be able to correspond with someone who speaks from authority. Let's not get into arguments with him!!

Jimby,

Here's a question for you. It must have been expensive for a label like UMG to support both SACD AND DVD-A. As I recall, UMG leaned more towards SACD at first, and with more titles (Eltons, etc). Was this because Sony "chipped in"? If so, why did UMG bother with DVD-A at all? Was it an artist driven choice?

Also, are there any figures on how many titles were pressed. For example, the second Michael McDonald SACD was in stores for only a few minutes. I would assume that one had a real short run, and there was no DVD-A of that title like the first one.

Also, the Steely Dan early titles. How close did they get to release?

One last Q: Once the titles were withdrawn, why doesn't a label call them back and try and sell them directly to generate some cash back instead of destroying the stock? I know it's probably not worth doing, but it would make for some good PR. Folks are spending a lot of money on eBay for titles that the labels could sell themselves.
 
That's not what I said...

I just spent the better part of this thread explaining why DVD-A didn't make it as a format. These are not unanswered questions. These are not imponderable enigmas. We, in the business, know precisely what happened and why it failed. We saw it happen in slow motion, every day, over a period of years. We spent millions on the format.

You are thinking that the labels are monolithic organizations that are entirely in control of their fates. That's not how it works. In the case of technology and formats, we are entirely dependent on CE manufacturers and their commitment to their formats. We cannot make a format succeed on our own. In the case of artists, we can't make them do anything they don't want to do. We can't stop them or their managers from negotiating huge budgets in return for their support, or withdrawing their support entirely. We can't even make our own labels support different initiatives because they all run as separate business units with their own priorities. We have restrictions working with other music companies because of anti-trust regulations. We are dependent on the entire ecosystem being favorable to our initiatives - the wind at our back, so to speak. The wind was never at our back with DVD-A.

For example, Apple spends something like $500m a year on advertising and marketing. That is a commitment to their technology. That's what it takes to drive something into the collective consciousness of consumers. That's what it takes to move the needle. It doesn't hurt that they have products that people want, but their revenue didn't really take off until they stopped focusing on computers and started focusing on iPods and iPhones. They still have less than 10% market share of computers. They managed to figure out what people really wanted, and put their energy behind that. But it still costs them hundreds of millions a year to keep people wanting more. And they still have flops like the AppleTV.

I am going to say this for like the thousandth time...the majority of consumers are not interested in surround sound music, and couldn't give a rat's ass about hi-res audio. They're moving away from the CD and to MP3s because MP3s give them what they want; convenience and portability, because that's how most people want to consume music these days.
 
True. My friends and other family members don't even have stereos in their houses, they have iPods and iPod radio docks. That's their music library. Their handful of CDs sit in a closet and once ripped to their iPods are never seen.

The iPod goes in the car, on the road, to the beach, to the kitchen, living room, wherever the person goes. He gets his own music when and where he wants it. No setting up speakers, no sitting in the right spot.

Face it, we're all weird. No one does what we do. Sad, really.
 
Back
Top