DVD-Audio backers - What Happened?

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The issue is this: Any deep dive into the vaults for the purpose of releasing old quad material would probably require some sort of consent from the artist or artist's estate, depending on the contract. Unlike movies wherein the studio essentially has a buy-out of the movie and owns it completely, music contracts are different. For well-known artists the label likes to work with the artist for a release; the last thing you want is an artist publicly unhappy with a release. And so that means listening to the mix and evaluating it, and many of these old mixes show their age and flaws, stuff that wouldn't be allowed out today. Most probably many artists wouldn't want some of this material to be released. So that's one problem.

The other problem is that there is no demand for this material. Believe me, if the label thought they could sell it and make money, they would be inclined to go in that direction. But the reality is that the demand just isn't there. Now if and when there is a real demand for multichannel material, I am sure the labels will step up and dust off the old mixes, but it's hard to make a case right now to the artist and label management that reviving this material will result in anything other than a fruitless exercise in expense and hassle. The ecosystem that supports multichannel content has collapsed, and it needs to be rebuilt before you'll see content being released in any quantity.

Thanks Jimby, I get a feel now for what the issues are from the record companies view.

We know you understand and share our frustrations, but for those not hip to or have not heard many of these great Quadraphonic recordings, it’s as if the movies “Citizen Kane,” “Gone With the Wind” and “Casablanca” were still stilling on a shelf in a vault somewhere because they only played at a few theaters and no one saw them to begin with. Some mixes perhaps do show their age, but IMHO that’s part of what makes these recordings so charming. There is also the fact that many Quad mixes were and are way ahead of their time, mixed by the greats of the music industry. Anyone wishing to mix in surround for the first time who has not heard any vintage Quadraphonic music mixes would be well advised to do so.

Hopefully, the stars will align themselves and we will see Quad mixes re-released again so that these important recordings are saved and enjoyed in the best form possible. We do have the Quadraphonic Chicago title “CTA” put out by Rhino last month. With luck more titles will follow.

Again, thank you very much Jimby for the insider’s perspective. We know as one who tried to make DVD-A/SACD work from the beginning that we have no bigger fan and supporter of Quadraphonic/Multi-Channel. It’s good to know we have a QQ member who’s looking out for us all from the “inside.” If there is anything we as individuals or as a group can do to help you, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Jim
 
Hello Jim
i have just read the entire thread and it's wonderful to have some "insider" perspective. There are several issues that need a bit more consideration about the whole dvda/sacd demise.

The issue is this: Any deep dive into the vaults for the purpose of releasing old quad material would probably require some sort of consent from the artist or artist's estate, depending on the contract. Unlike movies wherein the studio essentially has a buy-out of the movie and owns it completely, music contracts are different. For well-known artists the label likes to work with the artist for a release; the last thing you want is an artist publicly unhappy with a release. And so that means listening to the mix and evaluating it, and many of these old mixes show their age and flaws, stuff that wouldn't be allowed out today. Most probably many artists wouldn't want some of this material to be released. So that's one problem.

The other problem is that there is no demand for this material. Believe me, if the label thought they could sell it and make money, they would be inclined to go in that direction. But the reality is that the demand just isn't there. Now if and when there is a real demand for multichannel material, I am sure the labels will step up and dust off the old mixes, but it's hard to make a case right now to the artist and label management that reviving this material will result in anything other than a fruitless exercise in expense and hassle. The ecosystem that supports multichannel content has collapsed, and it needs to be rebuilt before you'll see content being released in any quantity.

Rewinding nearly 15 years, the first "digital multichannel music" that came around were DTS CD done by Brad Miller, and they did a 5.1 repurposing of some good old quad mix and some brand new ones. This when there was no dvd-a or sacd on the horizon. A niche market that stopped only by the Majors refusing to license other titles when the number crunching were becoming something decent. Maybe the Rhino CTA release is a step in this kind of direction. Too bad it's only available via the Website, while old DTS cd's were available at least on hi-fi stores or also to some big retailers.
That happened at the begin of the "multichannel ecosystem", or better, they started it.
A very BIG (and i mean BIG) problem started when dvd-a or later sacd tried to appeal the "general consumer Joe-sixpack" to mch music. Things went on and off without a decent coordination. Many of the things that i list below are deep buried in thread done years ago. I'm writing from a europe perspective, probably a market which isn't has been considered at all.
- Start of the dvd-a in 2000. Initial releases were very few, so it was already a problem. The point raised by another one is valid: CD had at its start nearly 100 titles to choose from.
- Marketing of the dvd-a was nearly zero. Despite being into hifi by a long while, just few "esoteric" stores carried one dvd-a player, and usually didn't restock. My first dvd-a player was a JVC that was advertised as dvd-v only, not as dvd-a, and was collecting dust on the shelfs because it had one terrible flaw: it didn't read cdr media. Of course it does plays wonderfully dvd-a and has all the logos and stuff.
- Getting the discs has been the most problematic aspect of tghe whole story. Nowadays we're lucky to have internet and web stores, back in 2001-2002 the only way to go was Brick&Mortar. The problems, raised also by Neil, was:
- some didn't know how to consider this dvd-audio: put it in the music? in the dvd? It was problematic to find them, but at least they were there, somewhere and usually in the oddest places.
- most didn't carry it at all;
- distribution itself went berseker: titles listed as available in Europe, usually Warner, were extremely hard to get by. The very same discs, treated as "imports", were available on the same hifi stores that carried once DTS CD. Lack of coordination, at least, and a big problem if the intention was to build a market;
- thanks God in some odd ways it was still possible to get Warner dvd-a; other labels were in a situation much much worse, Capitol titles being the worst. As someone else said before, it's hard to buy something if no one carries it.
- odd & sobs: the authoring itself has been a problem. Dvd-A went out in all the possible configuration: without menu and stills (Elvis RCA), with a decent menu (many titles), double-sided discs (some), with a very cumbersome menu. Problem is, why i do need to get on a screen to listen music? That has been a crucial point: some disc were a true pain in the neck just to play it, and this showed all its drawback when car players started to appear: pop a disc in and play, no clicks on "next, next, next then play" stuff. That point killed a lot the usability for Mr. Joe Sixpack.

With all this mess goin around, enters the SACD. Well, in theory it could had been a decent idea; pratically,
- at first stereo-only and single layer
- then add multichannel
- then add the cd layer and make a hybrid disc.
Confusion over confusion isn't a good way to win a market. Also, marketing for SACD was no better than DVD-A; one launch in 2002 then disappeared from the radar, at least here. Few players, some h-t all in one units with sacd capabilities and no disc to play. In USA the whole "rolling stone" story has been even bitter: after the only decent campaign for a mch format you just... pull the plug?
The final joke for sacd: getting a car unit from Sony in... 2008, after all the sacd production has nearly stopped.

There has been big mistakes by both dvd-a and sacd camps (IMHO sacd was the worst one) but this lack of coordination and clear ideas on the market of the specific product was a real killer for both: now sacd survives only in japan as a esoteric stereo thing, dvd-a survives elsewhere as a hobbist work. There was a potential market for ONE mch music system, the total confusion about the Big Ones shattered it. Maybe it was better if they just continued to license the titles for DTS CD and let the things grow little by little.
 
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
The reality is around 2005 labels did put their foot in the water and released surround music discs. They hoped it would generate some extra money. Then when looking at it, CD was still the cashcow with something like 95% of the income, DVD-A some 1% , SACD maybe 2% (the rest something else).
They didn't want to make the extra costs for that little market share.

It's my feeling that it would not be that different for Blu-Ray music only discs.

I also experienced what Jon said: I had a hard time finding DVD-A's in European shop, sometimes there were imports that did cost about twice the price of a CD. Here hardly any DVD-A were released by the big companies, they were betting on SACD. As a consumer I was hoping for discs with surround music that would be say max 20% more expensive than a CD, that was not the case for DVD-A over here at the time. For single inventory Hybrid SACD it sort of worked that way.
 
It's my feeling that it would not be that different for Blu-Ray music only discs.

Nice Post, but the reality is that surround on Blu-ray may sell better because there is no format war or competing format.
So far, from all that I've read, Blu-ray Audio only discs for most labels will not happen due to focusing on 2-Channel high resolution downloads.
 
surround music discs. They hoped it would generate some extra money. Then when looking at it, CD was still the cashcow with something like 95% of the income, DVD-A some 1% , SACD maybe 2% (the rest something else).

Your estimates of revenues for DVD-A and SACD are ridiculously optimistic.
 
I still think it's too soon and too many things stacked up against blu ray as an audio format. I see the biggest obstacle being lack of backwards compatibility. Even as more homes get blu ray players, there are still a lot of CD players in people homes, offices, cars....being restricted to 1 player for your purchase just doesn't make sense. Certainly there's the option for the 2 disc set, but then the added expense becomes another obstacle to add onto things. Or....like I've seen some vinyl releases do, perhaps including a download code for mp3 with the disc would help. I think the best we can home for blu ray as an audio format is a small amount of niche market releases. Unless....the industry got together and tried to do a big killer launch. Now that players are cheaper, a display of 100 blu ray music titles with mp3 download included put next to a rack of cheap blu ray players could equal a successful launch into the audio realm for blu ray. Of course, that would require the industry to work together, and devote the time and budget to such a launch. But unless they launch it proper, they shouldn't bother anything more then the occasional niche market release.
 
Your estimates of revenues for DVD-A and SACD are ridiculously optimistic.

I still think the potential revenues for DVD-A and SACD have never been realized. Check my blog for my lengthy analysis of the failure of dvd-a and sacd from the point of view of a consumer. I recognize that I didn't have any inside look at the industry during the time, but I think what I wrote makes sense. I'd be curious to your response to my take on the whole thing, now that I took the time to think it out and write it out a bit more beyond the quick emotional rant that not a whole lot of thought went into. I'd like to see the response to my thoughts from someone that has the inside knowledge that I don't.
 
What a great thread to read Some very interesting comments from Jimby inside a major Niel inside a mastering house and every one else on this forum.

Today on the BBC website I cam accross this and wonder how one company can be happy selling 10 Cds and aparently make a profit while a major is not happy selling 100000, and cant turn a profit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10089363.stm
 
What a great thread to read Some very interesting comments from Jimby inside a major Niel inside a mastering house and every one else on this forum.

Today on the BBC website I cam accross this and wonder how one company can be happy selling 10 Cds and aparently make a profit while a major is not happy selling 100000, and cant turn a profit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10089363.stm

Thanks for the link! Anyone want to email Mr. Mills with an MC request?
 
Your estimates of revenues for DVD-A and SACD are ridiculously optimistic.
I guess they are, I admit they were made up from memory, based on an article I read long ago, that's no longer on-line and rounded up to something simple. I was not thinking revenue but turnover (if that makes a difference) and worldwide not US only. Nevertheless even with these dreamed-up figures one could fear what was going to happen.
Figures like 0,1% to 0,2% are probably still too high, but closer to the truth :eek:

To compare with something else "SACD and DVD-A together were selling far less than vinyl around their (DVD-A/SACD) peak".
 
I guess they are, I admit they were made up from memory, based on an article I read long ago, that's no longer on-line and rounded up to something simple. I was not thinking revenue but turnover (if that makes a difference) and worldwide not US only. Nevertheless even with these dreamed-up figures one could fear what was going to happen.
Figures like 0,1% to 0,2% are probably still too high, but closer to the truth :eek:

To compare with something else "SACD and DVD-A together were selling far less than vinyl around their (DVD-A/SACD) peak".

my unscientific assessment comes from seeing SACDs for the first time sitting on shelves at Tower Records. Having their own separate section hid them from the rest of the titles (even DTS and DVD-A discs were stocked with the regular CD stock) made it so that the average consumer didn't even know of their existence. I got the same feeling that they were DOA that I got when I first took a look at DCC cassettes as a record store employee back in the 90's. That's a promotional blunder.

Less than 1% sounds right to me.

I don't know what can be done to make multichannel music more marketable. It feels to me like where technology continues to lead us goes in the opposite direction. We can do more things from our IPhones, Blackberries and, now, IPads than ever before. The idea of "what can I do while seated on my couch" feels downright archaic. The only place where I continue to even see the potential for some interest is tapping into the potential of the PS3 and luring in the tech-savvy 18-35 crowd that utilizes their PS3 to, not only play games, but download full albums for their "Rock Band" game, stream movies from Netflix, etc. If the same sort of test run which occured with releasing full album downloads for "Rock Band" could be done with some multichannel over PSN (and, for god's sake, on newer music), then interest could be measured. Just an idea off the top of my head.

This is also why I'm such a proponent of improving upmixing technology. It just seems smarter to me.

Excuse the somewhat off-topic rambling at the end. :)
 
Thank you winopener for the informative post, a must read. It clearly puts into perspective many of the frustrations from the consumers view. Jonathan’s blog adds to that as well.

In order to have a fair consideration about the financials of putting out DVD-A/SACD by all the major labels we would need “proprietary” sales records and other financial statements in order to accurately discuss what happened with DVD-A/SACD and what could be in the future regarding more MC releases. That information like any business of any size is jealously guarded of course. So without that information (which is unrealistic to expect) we’re not able to gauge the financial reality of putting out different releases regardless of format. But we do now have somewhat of a “ballpark” idea of what type of sales are expected by some of the major labels – at least at this point, what they need in order to put Quad/MC releases out there again. I appreciate the info.

So we need to come with different “business models” ourselves that might work from the ground up. I have some ideas which may or may not work, but my thoughts are churning in the direction of putting together a small business plan in PDF form that would give anyone the “know how” to put their own MC projects together and getting them out there. The info already exists here at QQ. Let’s face it; there are many, many local bands out there (no matter where you live in the world) with multi-tracks on their hard drives and many of us with authoring skills. With effort anyone can learn them. Neil has been very much an inspiration and help to us all with all the great work he is doing. As someone mentioned here “We need to make DVD-A the next MP3.” Whether or not it will work is another matter, but worth a fair consideration and a go at it. And if we need to adapt to other formats, if it’s made simple and inexpensive for us, then we might consider that as well. But at a causal glance it would appear that for a 1000 CDs/DVDs it is around a dollar for each CD and each DVD. Any band of any size could do this now and with even smaller runs. This also gives us the opportunity to fuel the MC ecosystem as it is and perhaps dictate the format used.

The other issue going forward is not only what technology is used, but how we use it. My “guessing” at this point is no one device or way to receive media (streaming from cable, Directv, iTunes, Disc media etc.) will rule. Technology is too decentralized now for just one type of device. But in the future with more and more technical options we’ll also need to remember to push the “off” button more often. :)
 
My question would be why are the labels putting so much into vinyl again? Does a label make more profit from a vinyl release than from a CD or DVD? That 180 gram vinyl can't be cheap....
 
My question would be why are the labels putting so much into vinyl again? Does a label make more profit from a vinyl release than from a CD or DVD? That 180 gram vinyl can't be cheap....

No. Vinyl represents an infinitesimally small amount of revenue compared to CDs or downloads. But vinyl sells more than DVD-A or SACD did.

More importantly, the production costs are low on vinyl. No need to pay for an expensive surround mix.
 
Couldn't they just make DVD-A downloads available? Surely there's limited costs and relatively high ROI, regarding. I would have purchased CTA from Rhino, had that been an option.
 
Even though I would prefer NOT to download high resolution files, it still wouldn't be an option for me if even the blank physical discs to burn those files on disappeared.
I still miss the album size artwork, etc, but would never go back to vinyl recordings.
Something tells me that I will be forced into downloads no matter what.
Don't even get me started on books & magazines!
 
When Blu-Ray and HD-DVD hit the market, there were TV ads for them, and even though there was confusion, at least the general public new there were new formats out there. The old guys who grew up buying LPs and Tapes probably had no idea that there was a new format that they could put into their DVD players to hear their old favorites in a new way.

Only if they had a surround setup. Otherwise they're just hearing a new, and expensive, and not *necessarily* better-sounding, remaster. 'Hi rez' for audio simply doesn 't make enough difference versus Redbook to be a compelling sales driver (compared to 'hi def' video, where the resolution increase over standard-def can actually be seen by Joe Public in a fair test).
 
jimby,

Here's another question for you, and you may not want to comment and if so, no problem.

One of the frustrating aspects of DVD-A for the consumer was the whole "Silverline" catalog of DVD-A's. Granted, they did release some excellent discs, but 80% of their releases were pretty crappy, and just upmixed mono or stereo, leaving a negative taste in the consumers mouth.

The worst part of the whole thing was that if a buyer walked into a store and actually found a DVD-A section (like Best Buy), the "good" discs from companies like WB, WMG, Capitol, etc, would be already sold because the stores would only order a few copies, leaving a bin full of these Silverline DVD-A's. Over time, the bin filled up with Silverline discs and the unaware Acura owner or DVD-A potential customer would end up buying one of these crappy discs, get it home, listen, and never buy another DVD-A again.

Even when you all went to DualDisc, it was Silverline who recycled their stuff right away to DualDisc. flooding the market with this low priced stuff.

There were many pot holes on the DVD-A road, starting with the copy protection deal. I seem to think that the whole Silverline product was one of them.

IMHO
 
I can only add that Morph The Cat has stunning sound quality on cd and sounds great to me. The DVDA adds multichannel to it. So maybe regular DTS surround is good enough and DVDA/SACD is overkill? I guess its the quality of the mastering and original source material that matters more. I don't listen much to MP3s so can't comment too much. I would agree at least that they sound "good enough" of the ones I have heard.
 
Back
Top