DVD-Audio backers - What Happened?

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I want to thank jimby for his incredible insight.

I am definitely one of those bloggers who "thought they new everything about the music industry". Now I know a lot more (from their point of view) :D

There will always be new formats. And better ways of delivering music. Obviously the current way is via the net. So the industry must embrace this. Right NOW. With ALL resolutions. If they can't be bothered to do this now, then why be bothered at all being in business? As for hi rez not making money...well this is often the case is it not?...The premium product might break even, even lose money, just to sell the next level of quality down by the truck load. But whether the online store method will remain the dominant way of music delivery 10 years from now, well that is a mute point. By then we may have hirez stereo and surround internet radio stations. Rhapsody 5.1...Who knows. The point is if the industry doesn't embrace change, it will never remain in the game. It can't just roll over and die ! Or all we will be listening to in 10 -20 years is tin can catalog stuff from a torrent site in Shanghai...maybe even in Chinese... The industry HAS to always have a premium product out there in the market. Premium product is what life is all about. What makes certain societies move human endeavour to the next frontier. Without this, we would all still be listening to our music via ham radio....

The other point I want to make comes down to jimby's recurring theme explaining why the DVD-A medium failed. His point? "It didn't sell". Why?

My view?...well could it be it wasn't available, wasn't marketed and there wasn't a "universal player" to play the format? And it was played by DVD players..gear not renowned for their hi quality sound, and often attached to TV's and low fidelity equipment... a complete mismatch to the "target audience"? But heck, what would I know...I lived right in the middle of a 1st world English speaking developed city of 4 million people for the 6 or so years DVD Audio was available and NEVER heard about it, or remember ever seeing one! Yeh sure, the labels got hit by the "perfect storm" competing formats and then the ipod.itunes store era. But what did they do for 6-8 years? The answer? Nothing. They just let it happen. They thought CD and DVD sales would last forever. They were way too slow off the mark selling their product to the next generation. Instead of getting quick smart out of the starting blocks when they discovered the format wasn't selling and putting hirez and surround up on their own websites and selling from there, what did they do? All they did was try and fight the new way of doing things. Fight apple. Fight Napster. Even try and put college torrent kids in jail (while the judge was probably listening to his copied tracks on his ipod). By doing this they were fighting the customers, not what they should have been doing (which was embracing the new way of doing things). They were caught out. Right now I'm listening to Floyd DSOTM. Yep. they've got it in one. The music industry sure did miss the starting gun ! It's no use blaming the customers. Their customers had already moved on and were demanding something different.

Well my look at hi-rez stereo and surround music from a clean sheet now:

We have a medium accessible to billions of people world wide.
A lot of the hidden "costs" Jim talks about can be stripped out via internet distribution and marketing, and the market is so much larger.
There is now a universal player (the computer, or network streamer)
Which can now be attached to high end gear (see www.computeraudiophile.com)

All good, for HDtracks etc al 5.1 FLAC. Every available piece in the catalog. Right now. What on earth is the music industry waiting for? (y)
 
Last edited:
Noob question... Let's say you download an album in 5.1 FLAC. How would you play it back at home? I have a Squeezebox Touch, but it only does stereo. To play multichannel stuff I have to stick a disc into my Oppo and press play.
 
Visit the link. Lots of good info there.

I'm still working it out too. Of course technically it can be done. Either via direct computer -> receiver, or streaming via DNLA to a network equipped Oppo. Bandwidth isn't a problem . Lots of folk are now happily streaming blu-ray's around their homes. DVD-A tracks aren't a problem. There are lots of "solutions" there. That is why the death of DVD-A's as a source is so tragic. As for SACD's. You probably already know a lot of the stereo hirez downloads from these original analog recordings, are starting to appear for purchase from HDTracks, and Linn. Certainly classical and jazz. Which is a good thing. But Surround SACD? Well that is another matter entirely. No surprises why. Hence my rant above, that may or may not refer to certain consumer electronics companies that have come to dominate this type of music. From what to do about the original analog tapes, to new artists, right up the chain to demanding you play the tracks "their" way. On "their" gear. Oh an guess what. They now have a monopoly on the next "disc" format. Now there's a surprise....! Fantastic news for us all isn't it! (Sarcasm) They will no doubt stuff us all up with that too..Then blame us (again) for the fact that hi rez and surround recordings are still not selling!! But it's your interpretation. Not mine. "No what I mean". As I said, everyone blames Apple, and Napster, and now consumers. Heck we're the "villains" for wanting something different!. .No surprise then, why there STILL isn't an online store for this sort of music is there? Because that mob are STILL living in the 19th Century. They are like the worst in the Auto industry. They refuse to move on....but IMHO, through their inaction, they are dragging the music industry right down the very same path....
 
Last edited:
As I said, everyone blames Apple, and Napster, and now consumers. Heck we're the "villains" for wanting something different!. .No surprise then, why there STILL isn't an online store for this sort of music is there?

I don't need an online store for surround, but I do think it's rather ridiculous that Apple has a lossless codec, but does not offer Apple Lossless as an option on ITunes. It'd make a HUGE difference, I think.
 
I agree. But Apple aren't the evil players everyone makes them out to be here. They are often seen that way. But they are providing the next generation with the content, the way they want it delivered. You probably don't need an online store, because you already have a large library of discs. But the next generation don't have discs. And never will. That is the stupid mindset the other companies in the music industry have to get out of their heads. To get to this next generation of listeners you have to provide the content the way they want it. That includes hi rez AND surround. To say the next generation won't be interested in these formats is a nonsense and dumbing them down. Of course they will. They just need a way to access it !!

Look quite frankly, I really don't understand the US and UK labels attitude to all this. Lets face it it is OUR darn cultural music heritage and future we are talking about here. Yet it is controlled and in the hands of a "culture" that quite frankly couldn't care less. All they want to do is hang onto the "old" way of playing music (through transports), so they can maintain the status quo and continue to support their electronics industry. Here we have the means right at our disposal to get rid of all this, and take control of OUR music back, and what do we do? We continually pander to them. It's just the same as our dependancy on oil. No different....
 
I agree. But Apple aren't the evil players everyone makes them out to be here. They are often seen that way. But they are providing the next generation with the content, the way they want it delivered. You probably don't need an online store, because you already have a large library of discs. But the next generation don't have discs. And never will. That is the stupid mindset the other companies in the music industry have to get out of their heads. To get to this next generation of listeners you have to provide the content the way they want it. That includes hi rez AND surround. To say the next generation won't be interested in these formats is a nonsense and dumbing them down. Of course they will. They just need a way to access it !!

Look quite frankly, I really don't understand the US and UK labels attitude to all this. Lets face it it is OUR darn cultural music heritage and future we are talking about here. Yet it is controlled and in the hands of a "culture" that quite frankly couldn't care less. All they want to do is hang onto the "old" way of playing music (through transports), so they can maintain the status quo and continue to support their electronics industry. Here we have the means right at our disposal to get rid of all this, and take control of OUR music back, and what do we do? We continually pander to them. It's just the same as our dependancy on oil. No different....

I have plenty of unscientific proof that there's interest in surround versions of very modern albums, no matter the genre. I'm in total agreement there.

I very much straddle the line between the older and younger generation, both in age and in tastes. I would buy more music online, instead of going to my nearest store (which is no longer as near as it used to be), or ordering a CD on Amazon, if I had an option other than mp3 to buy it in. What simply happens now is that I wind up buying less music.
 
If Rhino or Sony offered 5.1 24/96 downloads of old and new albums, I don't think there'd by much complaining around here - except maybe if the mixes sucked or they were brickwalled............ Oh, could you imagine that! That would be the ultimate insult.

UGH!
 
I have plenty of unscientific proof that there's interest in surround versions of very modern albums, no matter the genre. I'm in total agreement there.

I have lots of scientific proof, market research, and sales numbers that prove you wrong.
:banana:
At least not enough interest to justify the costs for the record companies to jump back into surround.
 
I have lots of scientific proof, market research, and sales numbers that prove you wrong.
:banana:
At least not enough interest to justify the costs for the record companies to jump back into surround.
I would love to see a Poll posted on the AVS Forum regarding how many people would be interested in 5.1 music and in what delivery method (formats).
I would bet that the numbers would be there, and quite high from a very respected Forum, would no doubt get record companies to take notice.
 
I have lots of scientific proof, market research, and sales numbers that prove you wrong.
:banana:
At least not enough interest to justify the costs for the record companies to jump back into surround.

Hi Jimby. I've read your every word on this thread. You obviously know what you are talking about! I have huge respect for you. But surely even you know the cost saving power of internet distribution.
Just explain to me again why it costs so much to register an internet page, then upload an (old) surround mix ...(which has already been done...)...when someone sitting alone at a desk anywhere on the planet can torrent just that for nicks....

And to think some of us here want to actually pay the music labels for this privilege... :)

Sure I can see how it might be costly (as you have explained) doing new mixes with current acts, and all the legal and negotiating stuff (as you have previously explained).. I can sort of follow you on this point. But on the web distribution and marketing side, are you then not going to save a fortune...doesn't this account for anything?

Then saying record companies can't afford the cost to "jump back into surround", when all it would involve would simply be uploading old catalog stuff for download...well I'm sorry, you've lost me on that one.....

As a matter of interest, all the Borders stores in my area have just removed their entire cd music section off the sales floor... Forget about getting a SACD...you can't now physically buy a CD!! . And as we have all heard DVD-A went years ago. Next will be DVD-V and then Blu Ray...But my guess is the itunes store is selling tracks but the millions.... does that tell you something? I mean excuse me, but what alternative do the labels have? Are they just going to sit there and do nothing?

Or have I missed some huge "secret" here?.... have all the record companies signed some contract with Apple, Amazon, or Rhapsody forbidding them from releasing hi rez and surround tracks on line by themselves? Is it as simple as that?
 
I have lots of scientific proof, market research, and sales numbers that prove you wrong.
:banana:
At least not enough interest to justify the costs for the record companies to jump back into surround.

i really don't care if they jump back into surround. like i've said countless times, i figured out my road to happiness within the surround universe long, long ago.

i believe there's just as much interest for listening to newer albums in surround as there is interest in older rock from the 60's and 70's. you may have your figures, etc. i have mine as well.
 
It would be fascinating, however unlikely if Rhino could state what their Quadio titles sold. We do however know that however many they did stamp out, sold. Look at the CTA Quadio title on ebay now going for $100+. Still think there's no market?
Check the number of people downloading and sharing conversions of the old Quad titles. Granted, it's not 100,000 people - but that target is unrealistic for a fledgling format. Just being realistic - multi-channel music is STILL in it's infancy, some 40-plus years down the road. LOL. Just this past week, I made a surround fan out of yet another friend. He mentioned that he had a 5.1 theatre system. I knew he liked the band Redbone, so I gave him my copy of Bob's fantastic "Surround Explosion". My friend LOVES the disc, loves the sound and wants more.

What I don't think anybody has mentioned here is the fact that 5.1 stuff sold so poorly is because there was NOTHING to buy. Can't sell what you don't have, right?

The market is small, we can agree on that. But there IS a market and I'm sure there's some profit that can be exploited from that. 100,000 units is (I believe) unreasonable at this point. Like I said, I'd like to see Rhino's business model behind the Quadio titles. They sold out!

Lastly, I think the whole format arguement is pointless. To achieve the greatest market appeal, why not stick with something where the infrastructure is already in place. Surround on DVD-V is fine for consumers and damned near everybody has that capability. So, there's no need for anybody to rush out and buy a new gizmo. If people REALLY want video content for these surround mixes, why not have a display of 4 VU meters and/or an oscilloscope appear on the screen so people can SEE the sound too? Or (my stupid idea) candid photos of the bands/players in the studio (if they exist).

Oh, and some high-profile titles would help. There is public interest. The hardware IS there. Remember, we ARE the public! This is what we're asking for and there are even more out there than just the few folks who show up here.
 
I have lots of scientific proof, market research, and sales numbers that prove you wrong.
:banana:
At least not enough interest to justify the costs for the record companies to jump back into surround.

Hello Jimby, good to hear you still have your ear to the ground around here. We would hope that the record companies are aware that although DVD-A/SACD perhaps did not make it as it had perhaps wanted it to by 2003, that there is a permanent enduring market for surround because of such efforts. And in that regard for the inevitable future growth that someday will happen, was not a failure in that regard and we did get a boatload of fantastic surround music from this era and the introduction of Hi-Rez lossless formats that are much higher than CDs. Surround again was still a wee bit ahead of it's time, but it will happen. 3D movies did not make it either when they first came out in the 1950's, but look at where were at now... No reason "3D music" won't make it either at some point with all the home theaters out there now and continue to be bought because of Blu-Ray and HDTV.

In all fairness though, we don't have access to your Data. We also don't know the accuracy and relevance of the info or how it was obtained. Also one question would be be is how old or relevant the info is and what would constitute "enough interest" for the record companies, if not to mix new material as that would be an added cost, but to pull some Quadraphonic tapes out of the a vaults and either offer Downloads or some disc format? Or keep in print past titles that go through the roof on eBay. We don't know in what amounts are needed by the record companies to have a successful surround market on a larger scale. If we had access to that info, we could generate perhaps enough interest. Without the info, it's an unfair argument for us on this end and we can only speculate.

Also, record companies continue to put out small runs of "Box Sets" of stuff, like it's still 1995, but one does question how much the sales are for those things. And RockBand video games, it would be interesting to know what sales are for the licencing of the multi-tracks for these games.

I'm surprised the Record companies, just don't ask us what we what through social media (that is constantly changing daily) and by posting want lists on the record companies websites.

It does make us wonder why the record companies don't innovate much, much more and so it would seem, continue to watch the ship sink. From Reuters Feb 2, 2011:

Top U.S. album sets record for lowest sales tally
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/02/music-us-sales-idINTRE71176N20110202

LOS ANGELES (Billboard) - For the third time this year, the No. 1 album in the United States set a new record for the lowest sales tally as singer/songwriter Amos Lee collected his first chart-topper.

Lee managed to take the top spot despite selling just 40,000 copies of his new album, "Mission Bell," during the week ended January 30, according to Nielsen SoundScan data issued Wednesday.

The old record was set just two weeks ago when rock band Cake's "Showroom of Compassion" debuted at No. 1 with 44,000. A week earlier, Taylor Swift's former chart-topper "Speak Now" reclaimed the top spot with just 52,000 copies.

Lee had never sold more than 16,000 copies of an album in a week previously -- a high earned when his 2008 set "Last Days at the Lodge" started at No. 16.

Iron and Wine (a.k.a. Samuel Beam) started in the runner-up slot with "Kiss Each Other Clean," shifting 39,000 units -- another career-high. The singer/songwriter's previous peak was No. 24 for "Shepherd's Dog" in 2007.

Nicki Minaj's "Pink Friday" jumped six places to No. 3, while the "2011 Grammy Nominees" compilation bowed at No. 4, each selling about 38,000 copies. (A year ago the "2010 Grammy Nominees" album started at No. 5 with 49,000.) Bruno Mars' "Doo-Wops & Hooligans" rose one to No. 5 (33,000).

Mumford & Sons' "Sigh No More" rose four places to No. 6, and Swift's "Speak Now" inched up one to No. 7, each selling about 31,000 copies.

Wisin & Yandel's "Los Vaqueros: El Regreso" debuted at No. 8 with just under 31,000. It's the second top 10 for the Puerto Rican reggaeton duo, after "La Revolucion" began at No. 7 in 2009 with 36,000.

The "Kidz Bop 19" compilation slid seven places to No. 9 (30,000), and last week's No. 1, the Decemberists' "The King Is Dead," tumbled to No. 10 (29,000), both in their second week.

Overall album sales totaled 5.3 million units, up 1% compared to the previous week, but down 18% compared to the comparable sales week of 2010. Year to date album sales stand at 20.8 million, down 13% compared to the same total at this point last year.
 
Amos Lee had the #1 album in America? That's quite shocking. Must have been a VERY slow week release-wise, not to knock the guy or anything.... :)
 
does not offer Apple Lossless as an option on ITunes. It'd make a
HUGE difference, I think.
have all the record companies signed some contract with
Apple, Amazon, or Rhapsody forbidding them from releasing hi rez and surround tracks on
line by themselves? Is it as simple as that?
i would suspect this is matter of cost of i-net traffic. as was mentioned above, there are
millions buyers who's downloaded their purchases. if the lossless file 3 to 4 times of the size
of the typical lossy, this would be 3 to 4 times more traffic and accordingly - cost of used
by Apple e-stores the bandwith. guess what, corporate Apple shareholders obviously
wouldn't be happy. it is the way how works any business at present.
 
Bandwidth should not be an issue as there are websites that with give you unlimited bandwidth and storage space for under $20 bucks a month. So anyone in theory could open shop. And if it is an issue, it's not much of one and would just be added to the cost of a DL. Here is one of many options:

MyDomain hosting plans: http://www.mydomain.com/hosting/

I don't see why one of us just don't open a site and licence the material from the record companies.
 
I have lots of scientific proof, market research, and sales numbers that prove you wrong.
:banana:
At least not enough interest to justify the costs for the record companies to jump back into surround.

Thank god you are here to tell me as a customer what I want to buy, otherwise I'd be lost.
 
Hi Jimby,

How about a market test. See if you can get the upper guys to authorize you selling a HiRez 5.1 24/96 download of Elton's "Don't Shoot Me, I'm Only the Piano Player". It's already done so it won't cost anything to prepare. Charge $20 or so and see how it flies. The buyers would have the choice of making their own DVD-A's or Blu-Rays, or just put them on their media server. I think you guys would get some press if you did this. If you didn't want to get into the market on your own, why not let HD Tracks have a go at it? Watermark the files if they're worried about DVD-A bootlegs.

Test the water and see for sure who's interested.
 
i would suspect this is matter of cost of i-net traffic. as was mentioned above, there are
millions buyers who's downloaded their purchases. if the lossless file 3 to 4 times of the size
of the typical lossy, this would be 3 to 4 times more traffic and accordingly - cost of used
by Apple e-stores the bandwith. guess what, corporate Apple shareholders obviously
wouldn't be happy. it is the way how works any business at present.

Hi Otto. Since when does Apple pay for the download bandwidth? This is payed for by the customer (end downloader)

In any case, the files aren't that big. Around half or less than the size of a DVD for a full album. And apple has no problem selling movies and TV series by the zillion...
A couple of 100 HiRez 5.1 albums downloaded by jimby's so called "less than 10,000 maximum market out there", is hardly going to crash the internet !

Torrents are being downloaded right now by the millions..probably this no. every minute...

Heck I could probably just about put all the available DVD-A's out there on my 2TB imac right now and would have heaps of data room to spare..

What you say just doesn't make sense...

Just why is it that this music is not available from an online store? Well nothing makes sense to me anymore: The economics. The availability. The so called "lack of interest". Nothing.

The only thing that makes sense to me as an explanation, is that a bunch of lawyers have got together to stop it happening...

I still haven't had an answer on this BTW...
 
Watermark the files if they're worried about DVD-A bootlegs.
:)

Hi Otto. Since when does Apple pay for the download bandwidth? This is payed for by the customer (end downloader)
yeah, it is. but in this world one can find for free only the cheese in mousetrap.
commercial use of internet has quite different rate of cost and from price paid for
product should be deducted cost of business operations such like licensing, royalties,
taxes, administration, etc. including cost of distribution. lesser those cost mean greater
profit for business and shareholders. obviously Apple can put on shelves lossless stuff,
but this would be more expensive and less atractive for the majority of the end users
who's mainly have Low Fi devices and HiRez sound would be heard no way better than
those mp3.
 
Back
Top