DVD-Audio backers - What Happened?

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
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.

Right Damn good idea! After all, Elton himself has authorized these to be released and as of now they're just files on a hard drive going nowhere...

Now Jimby, we know you can't storm your bosses offices and demand they release these (not a bad idea though ;)). But certainly the proposition should be considered. By waiting for "the market to mature" is to be that much behind the curve and denies the record company additional "revenue streams." Even if the market is so called "small."
 
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.

To answer the last question first, the labels will not license. We have tried. They start to talk, but as soon as you get into the details they stop.
You get the run-around, and passed from person to person, then it all changes when the labels play musical desks every 6 to 9 months and have to start over yet again.
Never mind getting Quad from the vaults, you cannot even get the bloody tapes your own band made out of Universal.
And this was in conjunction with another company who already have worldwide distribution in place, yet the labels will not even consider just UK/Eire license.
Not a hope in hell.

Personally, and I am sorry but this may come across badly, I do not give a stuff about the constant "poor record companies" line.
When DVDA first launched in the UK, it took me 5 days to even find a player for sale anywhere - and this was in LONDON!!
I went to the megastores on Oxford street looking for discs, and got told - this is 100% true - the following:
"Yes, we have DVDA up in the stockroom, but it's not going on display because we don't know where to rack it and we have absolutely no pubilicity & promotional material from the labels".
As has been pointed out here Ad Nauseam - you cannot buy what is not on the shelves.
Surround sales are low because most people have no bloody idea about it's existence, and because the labels totally failed to market it.

Moving on to costs.
Why is it so expensive for the "poor labels" please, Jimby?
Sorry, but I do not understand this claim. It's no more expensive to mix in 5.1 than in stereo - if anything it is faster & therefore cheaper, and authoring does not need to be stupidly expensive either. Okay, when you start adding scads of graphical & video footage it gets a little more complex but you do not HAVE to do it this way.
What is wrong with straight DVDA/V, and no visuals? Autoplay the disc (no screens needed) and perhaps have one page where you pick the format you want - stereo or surround?
Such a disc would take me about 2 hours to put together. Where is the expense?

Sorry, but I am minded here of the councils in the UK who are closing libraries down because of the "wicked tory cuts" yet still pay their chief executives 300,000 pounds a year plus fucking bonses!! If the labels spent a little less on signing acts like Robbie Williams & Mariah Carey for tens of millions of pounds, and spent a little more on promoting new talent I may just have a bit of sympathy, but given the massive advance to Ms Carey and the equally massive payoff to go away again and I am stumped here.

OQG, doing this via websites is a nice idea, but no thanks.
Files are only half of this - and can easily get lost/deleted/corrupted, and written discs fail regularly.
In addition, the packaging is part of the art - and I guess it goes to show how the labels think of music these days where all we get are shitty MP3 files and an entire generation who not only think this is how music is supposed to sound, but who also think a fucking telephone is a good thing to play music on.
I want silvers please - and replication of CD/DVD-A/V double packs is cheap.
Press 5,000 to 10,000 and see how it goes - you will break even at least with the right content, mixed & mastered properly.
Less crap like the SACD of Layla, and the dreadful (in the main) rubbish from Silverline (not their fault) bwhere they seem to have upmixed large amounts of titles.
Additionally, sticking a fuck-off long reverb in the rears & squashing the living snot out of L/R ain't 5.1 either. It's big stereo.

Get the content right, and it will sell.
The constant "Piracy is killing music" is a piss poor excuse. Home taping did not kill sales in the 60's, 70's & 80's and MP3 downloads will not do it now. Downloaders fall into 2 categories....
1 - those who take because they can, and because they see it as free.
2 - those who try first, and then buy - I spend over £150/month on music where I can but it is a bastard finding stuff I want to buy.

Finally, the labels ought to stop moaning about the downloaders all the time they perpetuate the "music is free" crap by constantly giving it away in newspapers - talk about sending the wrong message.....
How does this go? Let me see.....
"music is not free and you should buy what you listen to or you will kill the industry".
followed by "free in this week's News of the World, the latest CD/DVD by The Some Fucking Band".
I have - somewhere - an issue of PRS magazine where it stated that sales fell in a year by 31%, and in the following sentence it went on to say that major label releases in the same period were down by 34% - that, according to my maths - is an increase in real terms.

FINAL EDIT
Sorry to have ranted here, and I am very sorry if I managed to offend anyone, but I get so sick of hearing about the "poor record companies".
 
Right on Neil!

I'm sick of it as well. I'm so sick of the industry.

Don't get me wrong. I know I've made comments here in the past that seem to have pissed of jimby, but I do appreciate the fact that he does take time out of his day to come here and chat with us. While sometimes it feels like he's here just to rain on our parade and tell us to give up hope, I have to think there are better things he could be doing with his time, so certainly I believe he is here with good intentions.

Jimby....why are you here? What can we do for you to help you as a music industry insider? What can you do for us? We'd like to buy 5.1 surround recordings and quadraphonic reissues. It sounds like, despite all your research, numbers, and claims that no one wants this stuff, you do want to be able to sell us this stuff. What can we work out here?
 
Neil, you are the man. :)

Let's not give this Jimby guy too much attention. He posted basically just to diss the secondary point I was trying to make as to newer music in surround, completely ignoring the larger point I was trying to make, which is that I'd like to see lossless music given equal billing as mp3 with digital downloads. I was just given a $15 gift card to ITunes last night. Sure, I'm greatful for it, but dl'ing some mp3s just doesn't fill me up the same way. I may even just use it on apps.
 
I don't like the stuff that Jimby has been posting as much as the next guy here, but lets not chase away an industry insider just because we don't like the message.

While I've made it no secret that I strongly disagree with the reasons that Jimby has cited for the failure of dvd-a, I do believe I have seen signs that Jimby does personally like 5.1 surround, and perhaps would love to be able to bring them to us. But, for reasons beyond his control, he is unable to. Even if he did agree with the points we've made about the flaws in the market research, and the many mistakes the music industry made that contributed towards the failure of dvd-a, he probably still wouldn't be able to bring back dvd-a from the dead.

On the one hand, Jimby's posts do allow us to see what exactly the industry's thoughts and attitudes are, and explains their actions, and the reasons we got a knife in the back from the industry. On the other, it is easy to feel like he is raining on our parade.

That's why I've posted the questions I have posted above. And I await to see what response comes back. And I especially await to see what he has to say to Jon's excellent question, why not offer up what has already been prepared and is sitting on the shelf collecting dust? In addition to the prepared 2nd batch of Elton John 5.1 mixes, lets also not forget about the unreleased Steely Dan Pretzel Logic 5.1 mix. Come on! They are done, ready to go. We are here, we want to buy them. Give us the goods, stop holding these ready to go mixes prisoner!

And I too would like to see a response to the question about lossless downloads. Lossy was an answer to issues of low bandwidth and low disk space back in the day. Meanwhile, storage space and bandwidth has grown considerably since mp3s started being downloaded, to finally allow lossless downloads to be taken seriously. So why doesn't the industry embrace lossless more? And what about hi-res lossless? 24/96 flac? If the industry can cater to audiophiles with vinyl reissues, certainly they could start offering 24/96 flac.
 
Guys,

Don't kill the messenger. Jimby, if you recall, was a fighter to get surround music out to the world. His company was pretty much left standing on it's own in 2005 when Sony bailed on the SACD format. Remember it was Universal that single handedly got the most pop/rock SACD titles out (Eltons, Claptons, etc). SACD's own creator wasted effort on things like the John Mayer DualDisc, when in the end the finally relented to releasing it as an SACD as well. In the mean time, SACD disappeared from Sony's own web site!

Sure, we're all frustrated, and I'm sure Jimby is as well. One guy, or a small group of record company folks who may want to create, support and sell 5.1 music cannot fight the corporation. Suggestions, constantly being denied and poo-poo'd by executives making millions of dollars, can wear down even the biggest supporter.

We've learned that even if a 5.1 release broke even, or made money, that's not good enough anymore. Neil told us the story of DTS Entertainment, who was actually making money with their DTS CD/DVD-A program, killed it when there was an internal change in management because these discs did not make ENOUGH of a profit. UGH.

Everyone here has great points. We know what we want, unfortunately, with a few exceptions, we know why we can't get it. We don't understand the logic, but we know the perceived reason.

Let's be thankful for folks like Steve Wilson, Neil Wilkes, Tom Petty, and John from Rhino for getting us 'something'. It's a shame that they did not continue with SACD and DVD-A in the same manner that you can still buy new Gold CDs and LPs. What's up with that?
 
I've got an idea.

I'm about to buy a large library of DVD-A's

I feel so strongly about these corporate bully boy tactics, that I'll put up all the flac 5.1 tracks on a web site and ALL sale proceeds I'll donate to Sea Shepherd. Every cent.

I'll launch it with a free surround track of all the dolphin and whale calls made as they get slaughtered...

And NO. I'm not a crackpot. I'm deadly serious...
 
Further to the post above...

I'm not interested in screwing artists here...
The idea would be to get them to agree on the copyright..
Say proceeds of surround track sales go to charity, and stereo hirez to them..
That sort of thing...

They get linked to a good cause. They get more exposure because of this. They still sell the stereo tracks...
WIN WIN for everyone....
 
I've got an idea.

I feel so strongly about these corporate bully boy tactics, that I'll put up all the flac 5.1 tracks on a web site and ALL sale proceeds I'll donate to Sea Shepherd. Every cent.
.

What are you talking about?

Further to the post above...
I'm not interested in screwing artists here...
The idea would be to get them to agree on the copyright..

Uh, you do know that the artists don't own the copyright of the recordings, right?

And NO. I'm not a crackpot. I'm deadly serious...

I am not so sure.
 
That got your attention didn't it...

A perfectly sane, middle aged guy is prepared to donate his time and efforts for charity and the good cause of higher definition music.... all for nicks. Just for the greater good...

And technology allows someone like me the ability to do this from his very own livingroom.

You music industry guys are all fine when you can point the finger at pimply faced torrenting youths..
Oh yeh. Sure. 'they're the problem aren't they'

But when someone is prepared to stick there neck out: to do something for the common good? For the wellbeing of the planet...Well you have no argument for that now do you?

You still haven't answered my question about the legality of hirez downloads BTW. Just who is it out there that is stopping this from happening....
 
It would be a difficult task to do. Legally.

There are copyrights on the songs, and the recordings, to start with.

So, you'd need to setup a server and site that would store the material, and allow one to purchase downloads. That means taking payments, and tracking all these things, and only allowing one that has paid for something to download what they have paid to download. And make it all secure so that one can't hack it and download everything, or even worse, hack it and obtain customer information.

Then, you have to be setup to do this legally. I'm not sure what one does to become a legal online music retailer, but it would require tracking all the sales and making sure all the proper royalties are paid to the correct parties.

Plus, whether or not you are doing this for personal profit, which I do understand you aren't, you are still doing something and collecting money that you will have to be setup as some sort of business for legal reasons, and file taxes and keep records and everything that is involved in running a business.

It may be doable and possible, but I think what you are suggesting to do is much more difficult to do than you think.

What is far easier to do is to create a live internet stream that streams audio in windows media 5.1 surround. That can be done legally, but will cost you a monthly fee in server fees and royalty fees to keep going. With that, you may get up to 3 listeners at a time. Every now and then. Not only does that mean battling the relatively low interest in surround, but the lack of people setup to listen to 5.1 on their computers.
 
Sure. I'm no fool. I know you can't copy and distribute music. I'd never actually do that. But there would be nothing stopping me from approaching individual artists now would there? Even starting with one Album would be fine...just to get the message out there as too really who is 'at fault' here....

Can't you see the analogy? It's the same corporate logic that the Japanese hide under with their so called 'scientific' whaling...

It's nothing other than corporate bully boy tactics....
 
Basically, it's the same reason that makes the cost of Gasoline so high. They play the blame game to justify keeping prices high.
 
Sure. I'm no fool. I know you can't copy and distribute music. I'd never actually do that. But there would be nothing stopping me from approaching individual artists now would there? Even starting with one Album would be fine...just to get the message out there as too really who is 'at fault' here....

Can't you see the analogy? It's the same corporate logic that the Japanese hide under with their so called 'scientific' whaling...

It's nothing other than corporate bully boy tactics....

wappinghigh,

I admire your enthusiasm and love of the subject, but ease up a bit on Jimby. He's not the decision maker, he's an insider, sure, but he's not the one making the decisions to can SACD and DVD-A and whatever. He's gotten some nice surround Blu-Ray videos out to market, but he has to work within the architecture that we're all ticked off about.

Points are well taken, however! And of course, you can always speak your mind at QQ! (y) :howl
 
Sure. I'm no fool. I know you can't copy and distribute music. I'd never actually do that. But there would be nothing stopping me from approaching individual artists now would there? Even starting with one Album would be fine...just to get the message out there as too really who is 'at fault' here....

Can't you see the analogy? It's the same corporate logic that the Japanese hide under with their so called 'scientific' whaling...

It's nothing other than corporate bully boy tactics....

Have a nice life. I won't waste anymore time here.
 
No, there's nothing stopping you from approaching individual artists. It's just that in most cases, there's not much the individual artist can do. There are some artists out there that are lucky enough to own their own masters, in which case they may be able to do something. But that is a rarity. To get the rights to sell recordings, it is the labels you need to deal with, for the most part they own the recordings.
 
Sure. I have a few ideas. Start very small and go from there..
And jimby. I have huge respect for you. I've probably bought one of your blu rays.
Im well aware people Like jimby aren't the problem.

What's life like without passion huh?

Take care everyone...
 
hey Jon, what do you think about sending invitations on behalf of our QQ community to the artists and recording industry players?
definately there no warranty, but it doesn't cost anything to try.
more invitation - more chances to catch their attention. who knows, maybe some even respond.
anyway it will be better than doing nothing at all.
 
Have a nice life. I won't waste anymore time here.

Jimby, I hope that would not be the case. I wish to thank you very much for your help an insights to the past. Hopefully, when you are allowed to, you might be able to keep us clued in about any possible future surround possibilities that might be brewing where you're at. It would also be good, even if we don't like the news, that we know what the different record labels' thoughts are about surround at certain points in time. It's nice to know what the score is even if we don't like how the game is going. I thought it real interesting to learn here that DVD-A players we're delayed do to the need to add copy protection at that time. Thanks for the insights.

I know you understand and share our difficulty and frustration of having such a fantastic passion and an interest in surround and that we are not able to buy much of anything as of 2-2011. This is not your fault of course and I'm sure you are even that much more frustrated because you are there in the thick of it all and know better than anyone else "what might have been." I'm sure the surround market will turn again in some format and hopefully you will be able to give us some good news as well, when this happens.

For the surround community, perhaps we should focus our energies on what we can do. Developing new legal surround markets from the ground up ourselves starting with local bands. I know as one who plays live that the opportunities are here, now. We have the skills and know how. Also, we can advocate and educate the general music listening audience about surround and Hi-Rez formats. We can blog here and there are free blogging tools out there as well.

There are Tons of Multi-Tracks waiting to be mixed on people's hard drives and we can get help here on how to do this. This is a simple postive step we can do that would not cost much if anything, and might be the start of many a surround business. By going into your local music scene and making simple deals with unsigned local bands to give them the Hi-Rez Stereo/Surround treatment and offering free sampler downloads for DVD-A (or whatever format), this is one front in many of moving the ball forward for surround.

IMHO we need to build the market from the ground up, just as what was done with MP3 not that long ago. I'm also confident that another surround era of many releases will come because the technology is already here. Folks just need some music for their players.
 
Have a nice life. I won't waste anymore time here.

Jimby,
I agree with Old Quad Guy, I hope you stick around.
Some of the seemingly misguided comments are undoubtedly frustrating, but the vast majority of us appreciate your insider knowledge and insight. :)
 
Back
Top