DVD-Audio backers - What Happened?

I tell you, the way the industry is these days, to me as a long time supporting customer, sometimes I feel like the message to me from the industry is that they're only interested in the lowest common denominator, and the rest of us can just go to hell.

I mean, it's just such a waste to ruin the sound by over compressing it, just so your CD can be just as loud or louder as the next one. I have a volume control, I don't need my dynamics ruined so Joe Blow with his tiny headphones doesn't have to turn up his volume control as much.

There could easily be ways to please both the crowd of ipod listeners and the audiophiles, they could make the devices with the tiny headphones have an option to compress the audio.

But, in order for the industry to attempt to please everyone, they would have to care about more than the LCD. They don't, and have demonstrated so, very loudly.

But, that's just my opinion.

You know, I was thinking the other day. And my head still hurts.

But seriously. I always thought of the mp3 as the new 45. And I used to think, and still do think, that it's one of the reasons it caught on like it did, it filled a void. With the transition from vinyl to CD, it seems the single dwindled a bit, and left a void, which mp3 came and filled.

I know, singles never completely went away, there were cassette singles and CD singles. But, to me, they never held the same place as the 45 did. Of course, by the time I was buying music, 45s were a thing of the past. But, I mean, my parents each had a box filled with 45s. I never had a box filled with CD singles. Neither did my brother or sisters. But, with mp3s, once again single song collections are building, on hard drives and in portable devices, instead of in boxes.

And to me, it feels like....the mp3 shouldn't have to take the place of the CD. The mp3, like the 45, should be able to sell and coexist with the CD, or the album. Yes, you can easily buy and download full album mp3s. But, to me, the physical format makes more sense for the album.

But then again, it seems to be we've lost the art of the album. And I think that's a big problem with the industry. The album isn't what it was anymore.

At this point I'm just rambling, but I think some of it makes sense, to me anyways.

jimby said:

I don't know how many times I have seen audiophiles complaining about dynamic compression on a particular CD, and how the music is "ruined" by compression, etc. Guess what? There's dynamic compression on a lot of albums because people are listening to music differently (and on different equipment) than how they did in the past; on planes, in cars, while jogging or working out at the gym, and other high noise floor environments where having a bit of compression helps out quite a bit. Mastering styles follow the use patterns of most consumers and the target audience.

Click to expand...

It's interesting to see then that on an SACD like Depeche Mode's Playing the Angel, the CD layer uses strong compression while the high-resolution layer doesn't. Very elegant how the medium can serve different target groups.

jimby said:

Medium rich
Very crazy

Click to expand...

I hope to be rich enough some day then that I can afford to be that crazy. Thanks for the reply.

A lot of great information here, even if it is sobering to read and applies to two formats that are sinking toward total extinction.

This is kind of off-topic, but I have to say something about the listening style that is often said to be one of the main reasons for surround music's unpopularity i.e. people no longer wanting to sit down and listen to music. And here, I'm talking about people where music is part of their life and love listening to it for its own sake, not the people that have always been around that only use music to fill in the background while they broil a steak and grate cheese for their twice-baked potatoes in the kitchen or read how their team did in the sports section of the newspaper.

---> I can TOTALLY understand the attraction of being able to take your music with you and listen to it anywhere, because I own an MP3 player myself (not a iPod but a Sansa), but what I don't understand is the notion that it is uncool or wrong or whatever term you want to use, to listen to music at home and without headphones. Where did THAT attitude come from?!

Why in the heck would having earwax-encrusted earbuds constantly stuck into the sides of your head be easier than listening to music emanating from speakers - stereo or multichannel - one sits in front of, which is much closer to what you hear at an actual live performance? I don't mind headphones that much but afterwhile it bothers me because of the unnatural (to me) inside-my-head effect and so the majority of my listening is carried out with a room w/speakers in it.

My own tinfoil-hat/amateur psychologist theory concerning this issue is that certain MP3 player companies, not intentionally btw because MP3 players are mainly designed for portable use, have made it seem that listening to music by yourself with anything but their product and a set of headphones is equivalent to using a landline telephone and not being a member of the "right" social networking sites w/100+ friends on your page.

I think to counter this unpleasant notion that at-home listening is something only loners and electronic geeks enjoy would take a concerted effort on the part of the companies who sell gear for that purpose - e.g. Pioneer, Yamaha, Sony, Onkyo, etc - which would probably not be cheap to implement but it's got to be cheaper in the long run vs. the loss of profits they must be experiencing the past 8 years and the decreasing profits they will experience in the future because of the attitude so many young people seem to have concerning home playback gear.

And this may sound heretical on a surround music forum, but to help sell the idea of listening to music at home, IMO gear manufacturers and retailers of that gear need to stop pushing surround systems so hard. I sold that equipment for three years at a major retailer and trust me, not everyone cares about having sound effects zooming over their head during a movie or hearing the string section swell up behind them during a Beck tune. They. Just. Don't. Care. And many people simply don't want to have speakers, no matter how small, scattered around the room, especially the living room.

For more proof of this, as another member already mentioned, how many times have you walked into someone's home who bought a multichannel system and have all five speakers are stuck on top of their RPTV and the subwoofer stuffed inside a nearby storage cabinet? It's obvious they don't care about surround sound but they were forced into it because their is hardly any plain ol' stereo gear available and in my experience, there is never a stereo demo system at any of the major retailers to get these people's attention.

And as far as retailers and manufacturers & their shareholders are concerned: how many people won't buy ANY music playback gear because of the above scenario i.e. they don't want surround sound but there is little stereo gear available for them to purchase? There is no way to gather statistics for how many make up this group of system-less people (unless they intentionally told the store's manager they didn't buy anything) but I am sure X number of these people are out there.

Plus it sure doesn't help when Blowz and other companies have made it seem that only tiny plastic speakers and a bass box, all of which can be hidden, are the best way to listen to music at home. This to me makes home gear even more like something to be avoided, almost something to be embarrassed about! @:

It seems to me like many people are getting caught up in this wave of "new" and abandoning perfectly good gear and methods of entertainment that are still totally viable even in today's smartphone and multitasking-obsessed world.......and that's too bad. Having both options, music you can take with you and music that can be experienced at home in a more realistic manner, seems like the better scenario to me, for music fans and the people who sell that gear.

Back on topic : I'm one of those people that still think marketing for the surround formats by the music providers* was lacking (surround of any sort lossy or not, because IMO a hi-res format, multichannel or stereo, will only appeal to audiophiles). And here I'm talking about marketing that cost practically nothing but they STILL didn't use it.

My best example is when R.E.M.'s Best Of dvd-audio came out, at the same time as the CD version. I watched a long commercial on TV for this title, probably nearly 2 minutes, but was their ever any mention of the dvd-audio version? None that I could see, not even a little blurb at the bottom of the final screen because I looked for it! Really, how much extra would it have cost for the commercial's producer to type in one extra sentence on that screen?! Ridiculous. A huge wasted opportunity to advertise a struggling format, on national TV no less.

Then there's the cheesy box o'dvd-audios at a Wherehouse Music store, from Warner Bros if I remember correctly. This was sitting on a table full of CDs near the front of the store and to me it sure was a sorry sight to behold: a @2ft x 1ft cardboard container, more of a tray really, of a rather putrid green color. Looked to me like something used to display bottles of weed killer at a gardening store. I'm sure Warner was working with a really limited budget so didn't do that on purpose, but the end result was a very cheap looking display and nothing I would have looked at twice if it didn't hold something I already knew about.

Though on a positive note, I do have to give DTS Entertainment credit for showing truly proactive enthusiasm for the format: I walked into a certain big-box retailer's audio department around 2002 and spotted a large cardboard shipping box with DTS' logo. Among other things, inside were dozens of dvd-audio sampler discs, colorful brochures explaining what the format was all about, and even a large plastic hang-able banner. Very nice!

But here comes the bad part and is not DTS' fault. I asked the employee about it & what they were going to do with all that material and he knew nothing about it. He told me to go ahead and grab a sampler disc though, which I did immediately. Two weeks later I went in again and looked around for the sampler discs and the banner - nothing. I asked another employee about the box and he said since no one had told them what to do with it, they threw it and its contents in the trash. Wow. @:

Another positive effort by a software provider was Sony, who included an sacd multichannel sampler disc in an issue of Rolling Stone magazine. Great idea (I bought one of those magazines myself). But IIRC, almost all the ad copy that accompanied the disc extolled the virtues of the hi-res aspect of sacd and hardly anything about the surround aspect. Big mistake IMO, especially considering how much rock and pop music is not recorded all that well in the first place & a hi-res version would not much benefit such recordings. Oh well, at least they tried something big and splashy to get the music-buying public's attention, and this effort could not have been inexpensive to execute.

Hopefully Blu-ray surround will prove profitable enough for a label to invest in, though what Rhino is doing with their Quadio DTS dvd series looks really good to me.



* the hardware companies, at least Sony and Panasonic, did their part by installing fully-equipped & attractive surround demo kiosks in many large retailers.

DaneelOlivaw said:

My best example is when R.E.M.'s Best Of dvd-audio came out, at the same time as the CD version. I watched a long commercial on TV for this title, probably nearly 2 minutes, but was their ever any mention of the dvd-audio version? None that I could see, not even a little blurb at the bottom of the final screen because I looked for it! Really, how much extra would it have cost for the commercial's producer to type in one extra sentence on that screen?! Ridiculous. A huge wasted opportunity to advertise a struggling format, on national TV no less.

Click to expand...

This was a difficult thing to make happen for many reasons, some of which I try to explain below.

1.Most CDs barely make their release date. Artists usually spend all their time, right up to their deadline and maybe past their deadline, finishing the CD. (Why, because their contract with the label is dependent on selling CDs, so the artist's priority is the CD release. The artist career and good standing with the label was not dependent on any surround music release. These were an extra item or burden that the artists were not contractually obligated to release.)

Then when the stereo mastered tape is turned in, it is generally route marched to the store. The manufacturing dates and deadlines are carved into stone. If you miss a manufacturing date, you can seriously put your release date in jeopardy. If you miss your release date, you have to push the release a week at a time (you can't miss a release date by one day as they occur only every Tuesday.)

All your marketing and promotion spend, including long lead publication (magazines that have a 2-3 month lead time for advertising) is completely dependent on the release date. You can't run a TV commercial or a magazine ad telling people that your product is available Sept. 19th if you then miss your date by a week or more. That's would result in chaos.

2. Ok, the second issue is that surround mixes are usually done AFTER the stereo mix. Given point #1 above, you can see instantly why there will be a problem including the DVD-A or SACD in the advertising. Most individual labels didn't want to do it because by the time the CD was ready, the surround mix wasn't finished (or sometimes not started), and they couldn't predict when it would be done and approved.

The effect of all this was to somewhat decouple the surround marketing from main stereo release marketing.

While we did manage to have some simultaneous or near simultaneous releases, the unpredictability inherent in the whole process made the labels less than eager to go out on a limb with retailers, their media buys, and the press.

Now the solution would have been to wait for the surround mix to be finished and approved before pulling the trigger on marketing spend, but the problem was this:

Surround music releases represented no revenue to the label; they were not considered a tactical priority. Many of us who were working the surround production side pleaded with the labels to try to find a middle ground, but surround releases represented only delay, expense, and a large helping of unpredictability. Some mixes might never be approved; some artists only wanted to work with certain engineers who were booked up for months.

You can't think of surround music releases as just another SKU of the basic product. For instance, when you buy a movie on Blu-ray, it just another SKU of the DVD release. The movie studio is already working from a high resolution Digital Intermediate; they are already sitting on a surround theatrical mix.

But a music surround release is something new; it's a new piece of art, and you can't treat it like just another SKU. The artist needs to grow comfortable with making surround music; there may be fits and starts. It was not unheard of for a mixer to be replaced on a surround music release, all his work thrown away, and a new mixer brought in to start from zero. The process was far from predictable

3. And of course there were virtually no sales. If there had been even a glimmer of consumer interest, the labels would have begun to pay attention and try to make it work. But the labels felt that the products stiffed; they couldn't detect any pull from the market, and believe me, labels are great at detecting pull. Their whole business is dependent on detecting pull from the market, shifting funds and resources to releases that have demand, etc.

So without any market pull, and with an unpredictable and expensive production time line that served only to delay their main stereo release, you can see why this was a big problem in coordinating marketing.

Of course there were many other reasons, but this covers the main points.

What about the artists that wanted to continue surround releases? Couldn't the label have allowed The Flaming Lips to do a surround mix for Embryonic? I know they wanted to. And many of us here would've bought it in a heartbeat. Sure, it wouldn't have been the most profitable thing for the label, but it sure would have made the band and us supporting customers very happy, and I don't think it would have been a loss to do.

Jimby,

Thanks for that detailed post. I can sense your frustration as you worked in trying to get these surround discs out.

We know they were expensive to make, difficult to get artist approval, and a few other things, but what would prevent a label like UMG from releasing stuff that was already done, approved, and ready to roll with the artists support? For example, the rest of the Elton John titles. Would the labels actually lose money making them available for sale?

Do you think they could ever implement a program like Rhino Handmade to sell these directly to the public with no distribution costs?

BTW - What do you think of the Rhino Quadio Program?

JonUrban said:

Jimby,

Thanks for that detailed post. I can sense your frustration as you worked in trying to get these surround discs out.

We know they were expensive to make, difficult to get artist approval, and a few other things, but what would prevent a label like UMG from releasing stuff that was already done, approved, and ready to roll with the artists support? For example, the rest of the Elton John titles. Would the labels actually lose money making them available for sale?

Do you think they could ever implement a program like Rhino Handmade to sell these directly to the public with no distribution costs?

BTW - What do you think of the Rhino Quadio Program?

Click to expand...

Yes Jimby,

Thanks for that detailed post.
Most enlightening and it all makes perfect sense (to me anyway) when the facts are laid out that way.
I can really see what an uphill battle is was (is) to successfully market surround for a major label.

One thing, though. The recent Tom Petty release blows in the face of the above, as there was press before, during, and after the release - even though the surround release followed the CD by 2 weeks, it was well known that it was coming.

So, there are always exceptions, especially when an artist with some clout wants something and the label let's him do it. (Which I would guess is rarely the case.

JonUrban said:

One thing, though. The recent Tom Petty release blows in the face of the above, as there was press before, during, and after the release - even though the surround release followed the CD by 2 weeks, it was well known that it was coming.

Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see the numbers by the end of the year of sales on the TP Blu-ray.

JonUrban said:

So, there are always exceptions, especially when an artist with some clout wants something and the label let's him do it. (Which I would guess is rarely the case.

Click to expand...

Like Neil Young.

JonUrban said:

Jimby,

Thanks for that detailed post. I can sense your frustration as you worked in trying to get these surround discs out.

We know they were expensive to make, difficult to get artist approval, and a few other things, but what would prevent a label like UMG from releasing stuff that was already done, approved, and ready to roll with the artists support? For example, the rest of the Elton John titles. Would the labels actually lose money making them available for sale?

Do you think they could ever implement a program like Rhino Handmade to sell these directly to the public with no distribution costs?

BTW - What do you think of the Rhino Quadio Program?

Click to expand...

I believe that UMG has their own "boutique" label called Hip-O Select.
http://www.hip-oselect.com/

Thanks Jimby for that explanation (I had no idea that's the way the music business operated). Knowing that makes me want to hold onto the titles I do own even tighter!

Hi everyone. Nube to the forum. I have just stumbled onto this and all I can say is WOW! Absolutely wonderful thread. Incredible insight by Jimby. Thanks!!

I'll just say regarding the marketing of DVD-Audio. I'm just 50. I love music, I was buying it actively in the 2000's decade. I have over 500 CD's, and now 5000 itunes tracks, and I had NEVER heard of this format.

I'll say that again NEVER. The first I heard about it was via a Linn Audio thread and Computeraudiophile thread, from forum members discussing the possibility of using DVD-Audio as a source of hirez 24 bit music. Why? Well simply because it is impossible to source high rez rock/popular/dance etc tracks on line from sites like HDtracks and Linn downloads.

Interesting isn't. Let me say this again. I never knew DVD-Audio existed !! I had never heard of DVD-Audio until I tried to source catalog rock and roll tracks, in hi rez 24/96 bit format online! That is the honest truth. I'm so desperate, I'd just about buy that entire second hand 2K DVD-Audio catalog advertised on this forums a few weeks back...

Could it be that the cost of DVD-A discs now on sites like ebay is climbing NOT because of a demand to secure the last surround tracks available, but because folk like me are desperate for 24 bit hi rez rock and roll tracks to add to their music library?

That there IS a market for hi rez out there after all?

Now with the forums permission, I'd like to post a link to this thread to my favourite site: computeraudiophile.com, as it is about the best thread I have ever read on the music industry! As a matter of interest, the folk there are also talking about the future of hi rez audio on blu ray.

My opinion (for what it is worth)... is heck, if this thread isn't the biggest warning of why blu-ray "audio" hi rez discs will fail (like all the other previous disc formats) and why the future is high rez download sites (both in stereo AND MC).. then I don't know what is...

I say this because the internet is the only way to keep the distribution, marketing, advertising and sales costs down. And the Apple itunes store has single handedly changed the way music is sold forever...(yet they refuse to offer quality)

So "music industry"...what are you waiting for?

Sure. Post a linkl, that's no problem.

Your post reflects my views in that that market is there but was never developed, and that market is still out there. However, there are many here who will jump on the "doom and gloom" and "the poor labels lost their shirts" bandwagons, which I say is all bullshit, but hey, that's what opinions are for, right?

It would make more sense to ask record companies to release rock and pop with intact dynamic range, before agitating for 24bit delivery.

wappinghigh said:

I'll just say regarding the marketing of DVD-Audio. I'm just 50. I love music, I was buying it actively in the 2000's decade. I have over 500 CD's, and now 5000 itunes tracks, and I had NEVER heard of this format.

I'll say that again NEVER.

Click to expand...

And even if you had heard of it, how can you be inspired to buy or know how special this format is if you have no way of playing the Hi-Rez layer?

I bought the Doors DVD-A as I thought this a collector's item in 2002. But as I could not play the Hi-Rez layer and DVD-A players we're in the "no way am I going to buy" range (why should I), I was underwhelmed by the Dolby Digital sound as not being as good as CD. The mix I thought then was not up to speed with the Quad mix I remembered well. Not enough in the rear channels to create a 360 degree sound field. Although I've since come to appreciate this mix and understand that surround mixing for DVD-A/SACD was a bit different than the Quad era. Although related, slightly different animals, 5.1, compared with 4.0.

I was and still am the targeted audience, but the record companies blew it. They still are clueless with their MP3 and tapes rotting in the vaults not being properly digitized even at this late date.

Still don't think many of those mixers ever heard any Quadraphonic material or knew what the hell they were doing in regards to creating great surround mixes. I did end up buying and was lucky to not pay too much, but had to pay higher prices and many titles I can't afford now.

Today you don't need a standalone DVD-A player in order to play the 'hi rez' layers of DVD-As, and haven't needed them since about 2004. A computer, a soundcard with multichannel analog or HDMI out, and a software tool to rip the DVDA audio from disc to hard drive (DVD Audio Explorer and DVDA Explorer are two I know of) are sufficient for a 'front end'.

wappinghigh said:

Hi everyone. Nube to the forum. I have just stumbled onto this and all I can say is WOW! Absolutely wonderful thread. Incredible insight by Jimby. Thanks!!

I'll just say regarding the marketing of DVD-Audio. I'm just 50. I love music, I was buying it actively in the 2000's decade. I have over 500 CD's, and now 5000 itunes tracks, and I had NEVER heard of this format.

I'll say that again NEVER. The first I heard about it was via a Linn Audio thread and Computeraudiophile thread, from forum members discussing the possibility of using DVD-Audio as a source of hirez 24 bit music. Why? Well simply because it is impossible to source high rez rock/popular/dance etc tracks on line from sites like HDtracks and Linn downloads.

Interesting isn't. Let me say this again. I never knew DVD-Audio existed !! I had never heard of DVD-Audio until I tried to source catalog rock and roll tracks, in hi rez 24/96 bit format online! That is the honest truth. I'm so desperate, I'd just about buy that entire second hand 2K DVD-Audio catalog advertised on this forums a few weeks back...

Could it be that the cost of DVD-A discs now on sites like ebay is climbing NOT because of a demand to secure the last surround tracks available, but because folk like me are desperate for 24 bit hi rez rock and roll tracks to add to their music library?

That there IS a market for hi rez out there after all?

Now with the forums permission, I'd like to post a link to this thread to my favourite site: computeraudiophile.com, as it is about the best thread I have ever read on the music industry! As a matter of interest, the folk there are also talking about the future of hi rez audio on blu ray.

My opinion (for what it is worth)... is heck, if this thread isn't the biggest warning of why blu-ray "audio" hi rez discs will fail (like all the other previous disc formats) and why the future is high rez download sites (both in stereo AND MC).. then I don't know what is...

I say this because the internet is the only way to keep the distribution, marketing, advertising and sales costs down. And the Apple itunes store has single handedly changed the way music is sold forever...(yet they refuse to offer quality)

So "music industry"...what are you waiting for?

Click to expand...

I think there is a market for high resolution surround and hope we see further efforts by the music companies in the future. In the early years of DVD-A, several stores around here gave it a chance. Best Buy had a dedicated area for SACD and DVD-A with a nice selection for maybe 2 years, then stopped, maybe 2005 or so. I wish I had picked up some of the titles that are very hard to find now but I didn't although I did purchase quite a number during that period. It seemed everytime I went back to the store, the same titles were still there, nobody was buying anything except me so I thought I should wait for steep discounts to buy some more. I missed my chance, they seemed to disappear without my anticipated clearance sale. Circuit City and FYE carried some as well for a couple of years.