DVD-Audio and SACD Missed Their Market, But Is It Too Late For High-Resolution Music?

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

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

Baba O'Riley

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
14
Location
The Netherlands
http://www.avrev.com:80/news/0207/15.hiresaudio.shtml

title: DVD-Audio and SACD Missed Their Market, But Is It Too Late For High-Resolution Music?
date: February 15, 2007
by: Jerry Del Colliano

The story of the failure of SACD and DVD-Audio is a long and disappointing tale that has far-reaching negative impact for the music and audio-video industry alike. In 1993 the domestic record sales, powered almost exclusively by Compact Disc, were near 33 billion dollars yearly. Today, nearly a decade and a half later domestic record sales have dropped to about $9 billion per year with an additional $3 billion per year for downloads and another $3 billion for ring tones. Unquestionably, the music business has lost a lot of its luster in a very short period of time and is dragging the audiophile market segment down the drain with them.

While new markets like downloads and ring tones have created over $6 billion per year in new music sales, the overall domestic record sales have suffered a tremendous attrition with the main cause of this attrition being the lack of back catalog sales on CD. Napster in the late 1990’s, taught people how to steal music yet iTunes taught them how to buy music from the Internet the right way only a few years later. Where the real problem lives is the idea that a CD for $18.99 at a record retailer somehow can compete in terms of value with a video game or a DVD. Both DVD and video games are more expensive than a CD yet people of all incomes line up to buy movies and games with enthusiasm that the music industry hasn’t seen for twenty years.

The impact of not selling music on a high-resolution format like DVD-Audio or SACD or perhaps a more relevant format like Blu-ray or HD DVD, is easy to see in the music business, but its effects on the audio-video business is equally as hurtful. More than 2,000,000 HDTVs sell each month in the United States yet even that volume leaves traditional audio-video dealers starved for profit margin. Twenty years ago, television sales were add-on sales while speakers, electronics and source components provided healthy profit margins allowing growth in both the mainstream and audiophile segments of the audio-video market. Today, with the music industry pushing an antiquated and over-priced CD or low-resolution downloads on an iPod – consumers have little reason to not spend all of their AV budget on the most expensive HDTVs they can afford with audio that simply matches the TV.

The solution isn’t as hard as it might seem however. Putting unfounded fears of anti-trust aside, the music industry must find a way to resell their back catalog music on a high-resolution, physical disc to a new, younger market. If the record executives think that a high-resolution format can be supported by Baby Boomers who are rapidly turning 60 years old (as they did with SACD and DVD-Audio) they are dumber than a bag of hammers. All four majors should band together to adopt one or both of the HD disc formats and release their top 250 best selling albums of all time in high-resolution stereo (24 bit 192 kHz) with surround sound mixes (5.1 – 24 bit) as well as HD resolution images and videos for people to use with their HDTVs. Sell these discs at a few dollars more than a download (say $13.99) and watch people line up to buy them in volume. The titles need to be selected to speak to Generation X (think The Police, Guns and Roses, U2 and Metallica) and Generation Y (look to White Stripes, Justin Timberlake, Coldplay, 50 Cent) music along with the classics (like The Eagles, Pink Floyd, Fleetwood Mac) so that people can drop a high-resolution disc in their Playstation 3 or Xbox 360 and get an audio experience that actually wows them. If the music industry can lure the kids back to an impressive audio experience at a fair price they can both resuscitate their flat-lining sales as well as create a new generation of audiophiles who will breathe new life into that stagnant market segment of hardware sales. Albeit flawed, the copy protection on the HD formats make one plug connectivity a reality thus the need for analog connections from DVD-Audio and SACD are now gone. More importantly, it is time for the music industry to ride the coattails of HDTV and video games back to respectability. There are new consumers waiting for their next amazing entertainment experience. Why shouldn’t it be with high-resolution music?
 
Thanks for the post, it's nice to see that someone else realize what we here thought by many years. The incredible "Sony SACD screwup"* is a sad story and if here is a remergence of hi-rez surround i do hope it's on dvd-a.

* To sum it up in a single place what happened with Sacd, here's a short sequence of events from 2001 to 2007:

- Sony refuses to go with the dvd-audio project for royalities issues and decide to create a new format, along with Philips, basically pushing to some MHz the same 1bit A/D D/A conversion developed for cd players and less expensive than regular 16 bit conversion, with or without oversampling.

- Arrive the SACD on the market. Plain vanilla stereo, targeted to audiophile market (big $$$). Disc is SACD-only

- Multichannel is added, disc is SACD-only

- Hybrid discs start to appear, so now many titles can have a CD layer and a SACD layer.

- Sony launch a medium-price SACD series of players. Low-profile marketing campaign.

- Some pressing problems force a recall for many copies of a very popular title, Pink Floyd DSOTM

- Sony start to add SACD capabilities on "Home Theatre in a Box" systems.

- Bob Dylan remasters are coming on SACD; some feature a brand-new multichannel mix and, oddly enough, no one of the 3 previous quad release appears on multichannel. Lost quad masters? Or plain old dumbness?

- Rolling Stones remasters are coming on SACD; no multichannel title at all but a SACD-single of "sympathy for the devil" spot, along with some very debatable modrn dance-remixes, a 5.1 mix of the real original multi that amazes everyone. To date it remains the only mch-Stones incarnation. A contest is held on the "rolling stone" newspaper for the launch.

- Since SACD seems to going nowhere out of the small number of classical hi-rez lovers, Sony tries a new project, based on developments conducted both in Europe and USA (and thus with similar and comploicated patent issues): the DuaDisc - one side cd, one side dvd. SACD byebye?

- Not A SINGLE dualdisc released by Sony has a hi-rez mix; many of them are plain vanilla stereo 16bit 48K on the dvd side. Some do have a 5.1 mix in Dolby Digital - and many times these mixes are nothing to write home about (Bruce Springsteen Devils and dust is the finest example of that, dvd side badly mixed AND mastered). Other labels do release Dualdisc with a dvd-a layer and with decent 5.1 mixes (Bon Jovi).

- SACD is still going nowhere: there are tons of classical titles, which helps to flesh a catalogue but never shows on the sales charts, and popular titles are just disappearing.

- In 2007 Sony announces a new Car Radio deck for the aftermarket with SACD capabilities. The best commentary on that has been: "Six years too late".

To date, the Car radio still has to show its faceplate on stores and there is no tools for create a sacd at home, neither any sacd playback on a pc or whatever.
If all that doesn't count for a "screwup"...
 
I'm happy to Sony-bash on this point, but a few quibbles:

...

- Sony refuses to go with the dvd-audio project for royalities issues and decide to create a new format, along with Philips, basically pushing to some MHz the same 1bit A/D D/A conversion developed for cd players and less expensive than regular 16 bit conversion, with or without oversampling.

...

Sony already had developed DSD as an archival medium. Distribution on disc, and production tools followed, to varying degree.

...

- Not A SINGLE dualdisc released by Sony has a hi-rez mix; many of them are plain vanilla stereo 16bit 48K on the dvd side. Some do have a 5.1 mix in Dolby Digital - and many times these mixes are nothing to write home about (Bruce Springsteen Devils and dust is the finest example of that, dvd side badly mixed AND mastered). Other labels do release Dualdisc with a dvd-a layer and with decent 5.1 mixes (Bon Jovi).

...

The Foo Fighters In Your Honor special edition had two DualDiscs. The acoustic disc had an MLP 5.1 mix. 20,000 of these were made, they sold out instantly, and another run wasn't made - what are they thinking? AFAIK, this is the only one from Sony.
 
I love my SACDs, but here is my take on what should have happened:

1) All labels including Sony should have got behind DVD-A. Sony could have still issued SACDs in stereo and 5.1 if they so desired for their audiophile market. Strictly speaking in terms of Surround Music, SACD did more harm than good because of it's lack of "low rez" surround.

2) Before the first DVD-Audio hit the marketplace, there should have been agreements with all major car audio manufacturers to get surround capable head units in cars as standard or as part of the "upgraded" car audio systems. All of these cars had more than two speakers, what's the big deal?

The reason XM and SIRIUS exist today is because of the car market. Surround sound should have done this as well. The argument that HiRez in the car is a waste misses the point, it's not the HiRez that would be the selling point, it would be the SURROUND aspect. Where else is the listener anchored in the sweet spot (well, almost the sweet spot)

3) The first gen of Surround Music of the 2000's should have not included copy protection. Sure, I know that could be considered unrealistic, but a major problem with SACD and DVD-A was that in order to hear the HiRez surround, you needed a DVD player with 6 Ch out and a receiver with 6 channel in. Too much to ask of Joe Six Pack. You have to be able to put the disc in and press PLAY.

4) Titles should have flowed freely, heavy in current music. Green Day, Hip Hop, stuff that the MP3 crowd would want to BUY. It may be too late here in 2007, but in 1999, it was still realistic.

5) Labels should have gone for the gusto right off the bat. Rolling Stones, Beatles, Led Zeppelin, every baby boomers wet dream of their musical roots should have been in the stores along with advertising. Most boomers don't buy music anymore, they don't listen to anything new. That's life. However, give them Stairway to Heaven that can be played in their cars and home theaters to impress their friends, they're there. They go for the Flat Screens, they go for the sound systems, get 'em with the surround music.

If the players were already in their cars, and discs could be played in home theater systems without special cables and settings, and there was only ONE FORMAT, there would have been a chance.

But alas, it was doomed from the start.

And, now, we have...................................Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. "Second verse, same as the first!"
 
1) All labels including Sony should have got behind DVD-A. Sony could have still issued SACDs in stereo and 5.1 if they so desired for their audiophile market.
Actually, there were informal discussions between the camps on the topic of permitting DSD to be one of the data forms on DVD-A but it was rejected by both sides.

Kal
 
I really think SACD had a great chance to take off, but the marketing (especially from Sony) was very badly handled. Having the term 'CD' on the title made it instantly recognisable to people making them know it was all about music and that it was an extension of what we had all been buying for years.

From day one I believe all SACD's should have been Hybrid releases and have included SACD Hi-Rez Stereo and Multi-Channel. Demo units should also have been set up in all major retailers to show off the sound of SACD Multi-Channel and the new logo clearly labeled on both discs and products so that consumers knew which home cinema systems etc supported the format. While boasting about the higher quality found in SACD Multi-Channel & Stereo (when done right!) through a compatible SACD player, the format should also have pushed the fact that it was playable in every CD player available and that music can also be ripped from the disc to be played back in all the various i-pods and MP3 players on the market. I don't see how a maketing push stating all these facts from the start would not have helped seal success for the format.

Again it is strange how I see this higher expectations in all circles bar music. People are constantly demanding higher quality in games as well as movies and backwards compatibility to boot. I have the Nintendo 'Wii' and love the console but the complaints from consumers early on in the systems announcements that it would support Pro-Logic II and not Dolby Digital was spoken about in many forums and magazines with a lot of people left dissapointed by the news. On the flip side, the news that it would be 100% compatible with all of Nintendo's previous 'GameCube' games was hugely praised. Consumers are demanding higher quality and backward compatibilty and applauding the news. See a pattern here??

SACD would have covered all these bases, and I am yet to demo the format to anybody who has walked away unimpressed. Until I update my system I am still playing SACD through a Sony all in one home theatre system which I purchased over 3 years ago. The unit cost me £600 here in the UK but playing an SACD through it compared to a CD there is still a noticeable difference. It is scary how many of these units we sold in a single year (it was our biggest selling product of that year) so the amount of 5.1 compatible SACD players sitting in consumers homes will be quite a number. Problem is because of no marketing push none of these people will ever know that they have a completely fantastic audio experience waiting for them at the push of a button. This really annoys me as I bet if they could hear just one of their favourite albums on the format there would be no going back. One disc sale normally always leads to another once impressed so it really does seem like a missed opportunity.

A frustrated Hi-Rez fan...:mad:
 
It is still all speculation as to what might have been but I don't think any of the errors made by both sides of the high resolution audio format war has mattered. Both formats could only forever be niche market formats regardless. I am delighted with the selection I have managed to purchase in the various formats, SACD/DVD-A/DVD-V, now owning over 300 high resolution discs. With that many, I can only average playing each once each year since I can't play anything except CD in my auto. I play CD some in my home systems, although most often I play high resolution or surround music at home now. My favorite format continues to be SACD for stereo or surround and the selection with over 4,000 titles was best. My personal take remains, Sony did a great job with the format and the companies that insisted on DVD-A made the mistake but even universal agreement and only one format wouldn't have made SACD a mass market product success. It may have made SACD a niche market profitable product rather than the financial disaster it is. Sony's error of spending so much money on the format turned out to be a terrible business decision and I am sure we can even find better ways to have spent the money and better music could have been released but that wouldn't have mattered, my neighbor still wouldn't have an SACD setup. My reality of not knowing even one person in real life that cares about SACD or DVD-A still tells me, none of the marketing or format war issues mattered. I bet I could sit down and name a hundred people that like downloading MP3 or AAC formatted music including all of my children and all of my children's friends. It just seems to be the way things are now. I am way out of the mainstream in many areas.

I don't think it is too late for high resolution music and a different approach, with different higher pricing might make for a great high quality limited but profitable market for the companies involved. HD DVD and Blu-ray may need to reduced to one format before we see a successful high resolution music business or it may be possible for both to survive and thrive. I personally hope that all 4 major music labels can agree to release music on Blu-ray at about $17 - $20 per title and we see what is possible.

$3 billion each for downloads and ringtones must be very profitable. The loss of entertainment market share by CD may not be correctable and there may not be a next product for audio to compare to DVD for video. I am not sure DVD can sustain the current sales figures.

Chris
 
Chris, I agree with all your points. As an early adopter of CD's; DVD's; DVD-A's and eventually SACD out of necessity, I think what surprised me the most was my notion that once people heard 5.1 audio from their DVD player they would automatically want all their music that good. Well, I guess not.

A personal note: Kal, I liked your piece on Ivan Fischer. Well done. Too bad the rest of the folks at that magazine couldn't support hi rez multlichannel. Another thing which couldn't have helped.
 
A personal note: Kal, I liked your piece on Ivan Fischer. Well done. Too bad the rest of the folks at that magazine couldn't support hi rez multlichannel. Another thing which couldn't have helped.
Thanks. Another reader has brought up this point (a sore one with me, btw) and, JA willing, my reply will appear in Letters one day. There's enough blame to go around.

Kal
 
Dont forget though , that , the standard HDMI connection of the new Hd formats re-introduces to an alarming degree , the dreaded sound-quality destroying 'jitter'. Seperating ( in the receiver/processor ) the audio/video sections might help but this connector was designed with handiness/control rather than quality in mind.

~M~
 
It has never been demonstrated that 'low rez' CD-quality audio is necessarily an audible problem in the first place. That said, 24 bit /96 kHz capability is now so widespread, and storage space/processing power so cheap, that there's no particular reason to abandon it, even though it's WAY overkill for virtually all home environments and sources.

The LP-loving 'audiophile' journal readership and some trendoid, LP-collecting youths aside, the public was not unhappy with CD sound, there was no built-in market for a supposedly gilded lily. The real 'problem' from my POV is poor/faddish mastering, but the public is barely cognizant of that as a problem, if at all. Superb two-channel audio exploiting the normal limits of human perception of frequency and dynamic range, could be delivered on CD, and has been.

The acceptance/rejection of surround is a separate issue from 'hi rez'. Even there, though , subjectively excellent sounding surround could be and has been delivered even in 'lossy' DTS or DD, if they are mastered carefully with knowledge of all the options available, much less the newer True HD and DTS+ formats.

Jitter, as a 'sound destroying' problem for consumers, is vastly overhyped in audiophile quarters. 'Bad' jitter is 'timing' errors correlated with the signal, and they have to be pretty bad, and occuring at the right frequencies, to be audible. Ever consider what the analog of that is in an LP system? I believe it used to be called 'wow'. You won't tend to find any 'timing errors' THAT egregious in CD playback, yet LP is still touted as the gold standard for sound in some quarters. See also this thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=739841
 
Last edited:
Sony does it again... too little, too late. So let's say they do offer up some car head units with SACD. Are they going to support the format by pressing new titles, ones that the kids today are actually going to be interested in? That would be the key to their success. But then again, Sony hasn't exactly been known for smart marketing. Let's see; there's Beta, a better idea that got eclipsed by an inferior format. There's Minidisc. A good idea, but their ATRAC compression had too many artifacts to keep the quality of the recorded music faithful to the original. And am I the only one who remembers the Elcaset? Kinda reminded me of an old RCA tape cartridge system from the early 60's. So maybe you'd think they would have learned something from all this?
 
Sony has, imho, become irrelevant here. There are a number of labels still actively publishing SACDs and there are players for those releases. Any hope to capture the mass market is over.

Kal
 
Sony has, imho, become irrelevant here. There are a number of labels still actively publishing SACDs and there are players for those releases. Any hope to capture the mass market is over.

Kal

They may still be releasing SACD's, but that won't matter if they're not titles the target audiences want to buy. Too many releases ignored the younger people who want to listen to rap, hip-hop, and whatever else sells on CD. The record companies have to appeal to the masses with their SACD releases. Had they done this from the beginning, things might have been different. It's also mostly independent labels still releasing SACD's. Sony can't be called irrelevant here because they could lead the way in getting other companies, such as UMG, back into the fold. And, if they do plan on introducing car head units with SACD, I doubt they'd do so and not support them. But then, it wouldn't be the first time they've shot themselves in the foot.
 
They may still be releasing SACD's, but that won't matter if they're not titles the target audiences want to buy.
Of course but that depends on your target! The smaller classical labels seem to be selling SACD just fine.

Kal
 
1. The music companies/manufacturers should open up the licensing for both SACD and DVD-A. SACD/DVD-A formats should be in all new CD/DVD players car/home including the least expensive units.

2. Faze out CDs for SACD and/or offer CD - DVD-A/DTS/DD combination packs. Lower the price of all Discs to under $15 to gain mass acceptance of these formats.
 
Last edited:
Of course but that depends on your target! The smaller classical labels seem to be selling SACD just fine.

Kal

But the people who buy classical music aren't the ones who would be interested in upgrading their car systems to play SACD. That would be more the teens and young adults-- 20-somethings-- who would do so, if there's something worthwhile to play. The major record companies would have to step up to the plate to make sure there's something there for everybody.
Not a lot of likelihood there!
 
But the people who buy classical music aren't the ones who would be interested in upgrading their car systems to play SACD. That would be more the teens and young adults-- 20-somethings-- who would do so, if there's something worthwhile to play.
I doubt that's likely, even with the release of more SACDs with mass market appeal.

Kal
 
Last edited:
If those 3 SACD car players show up in the USA at all, I will be shocked.

If they do, and anyone puts them in their cars to play SACDs, I would be even more shocked.
 
Back
Top