Steve Hoffman forums full of CRAZY stereo obsessed people!

[key_wiz]

Zeppelin could of possible added a couple of thousand extra MC fans! If J. Page would of issued Zep in 5.1 as LTD edition box sets, say 10,000 copies available, I am 100% sure they would of sold. A band like that could of changed things for the better!

I was being facetious with The Monkees comment. (There's a very odd Monkees obsession over at that forum as well. Not sure how much it crosses over to the stereo-obsessed guys though). But you of course make a good point. Zep product would be a great boon to MC.

But rather than more special-edition, limited copies, over-priced box sets, I think what the world needs right now is general-availability of MC. Consider this:

Quad never completely caught on in the 70s because it required people to buy special equipment. The early 00s attempt at DVD-A and SACD failed for the same reason.

But right now, (ironically considering the general state of the music industry) might be as close as we ever come to being to reach some sort of critical mass with MC. Millions of people have surround-sound systems in their homes. There's no need to ask these people to buy new systems or appeal to any sense of "audiophile" quality for the music. And there are many, many already mixed MC albums in the vaults that could be reissued rather cheaply.

If the labels started a new re-issue campaign, and focused on classic titles at affordable prices and letting people know that the product will play right now and sound great with their existing DVD/BluRay surround systems, I think it would have a CHANCE of taking off. If sitting near the checkout bin at Best Buy and WalMart are $9.99 copies of surround versions of Hotel California and Dark Side of the Moon and whatnot I would think all sorts of people who never really though much about MC audio before would give it a shot. And it would probably also be the last chance for the labels to sell those old titles to the same people one last time.

THEN, only after you get the masses more involved in the product, can you effectively start selling special edition packages and the like.

I really don't understand why the labels don't try this. The overall cost wouldn't be THAT much, and I don't know how many other bullets they still have in their pockets. Especially considering catalog titles. And, who knows? It might help inspire a whole new generation of people to LISTEN to music again....

 

[Clint Eastwood]

I was being facetious with The Monkees comment. (There's a very odd Monkees obsession over at that forum as well. Not sure how much it crosses over to the stereo-obsessed guys though). But you of course make a good point. Zep product would be a great boon to MC.

But rather than more special-edition, limited copies, over-priced box sets, I think what the world needs right now is general-availability of MC. Consider this:

Quad never completely caught on in the 70s because it required people to buy special equipment. The early 00s attempt at DVD-A and SACD failed for the same reason.

But right now, (ironically considering the general state of the music industry) might be as close as we ever come to being to reach some sort of critical mass with MC. Millions of people have surround-sound systems in their homes. There's no need to ask these people to buy new systems or appeal to any sense of "audiophile" quality for the music. And there are many, many already mixed MC albums in the vaults that could be reissued rather cheaply.

If the labels started a new re-issue campaign, and focused on classic titles at affordable prices and letting people know that the product will play right now and sound great with their existing DVD/BluRay surround systems, I think it would have a CHANCE of taking off. If sitting near the checkout bin at Best Buy and WalMart are $9.99 copies of surround versions of Hotel California and Dark Side of the Moon and whatnot I would think all sorts of people who never really though much about MC audio before would give it a shot. And it would probably also be the last chance for the labels to sell those old titles to the same people one last time.

THEN, only after you get the masses more involved in the product, can you effectively start selling special edition packages and the like.

I really don't understand why the labels don't try this. The overall cost wouldn't be THAT much, and I don't know how many other bullets they still have in their pockets. Especially considering catalog titles. And, who knows? It might help inspire a whole new generation of people to LISTEN to music again....

What you said certainly will resonate on forums like this one and I agree in "theory" to what you state, but there are problems in the real life application. The music industry is more concerned with making music available to portable devices and considers convenience more important than quality; hence the Loudness Wars. It's a niche market and even the technical people within this niche market can't seem to get any consensus which format or "method" is suitable for hi rez music. SACD seems entrenched despite the protest of some on technical grounds. DVD audio has it's supporters because of the diversity of the application(automobile useage)and blu ray offers the best possible solution, IMO, but some people in the technical crowd don't like to work with it in the hi rez audio format.

The blu ray format could be the salvation of hi rez audio as the machines are cheap and the storage capacity is huge, but along the way the creators of the technology and the marketing arm dropped the ball with constant firmware updates and a poor advertising campaign. You can see from recent conversations that people within the industry have different preferences; some don't like DTS, some hate SACD, some don't want to pay additional fees for blu ray audio. It goes on and on. Even though I'm not a classical music buff it's a good thing that the classical music lovers kept SACD afloat or we would have next to nothing in the way of improved sound for many rock/pop titles. I'm okay with hi rez audio staying a niche market, as long as it survives.

 

[key_wiz]

What you said certainly will resonate on forums like this one and I agree in "theory" to what you state, but there are problems in the real life application. The music industry is more concerned with making music available to portable devices and considers convenience more important than quality; hence the Loudness Wars. It's a niche market and even the technical people within this niche market can't seem to get any consensus which format or "method" is suitable for hi rez music. SACD seems entrenched despite the protest of some on technical grounds. DVD audio has it's supporters because of the diversity of the application(automobile useage)and blu ray offers the best possible solution, IMO, but some people in the technical crowd don't like to work with it in the hi rez audio format.

The blu ray format could be the salvation of hi rez audio as the machines are cheap and the storage capacity is huge, but along the way the creators of the technology and the marketing arm dropped the ball with constant firmware updates and a poor advertising campaign. You can see from recent conversations that people within the industry have different preferences; some don't like DTS, some hate SACD, some don't want to pay additional fees for blu ray audio. It goes on and on. Even though I'm not a classical music buff it's a good thing that the classical music lovers kept SACD afloat or we would have next to nothing in the way of improved sound for many rock/pop titles. I'm okay with hi rez audio staying a niche market, as long as it survives.

But you're talking apples and oranges here. I'm not talking about hi-rez. I'm talking about a bottom-up approach to reaching the general public with MC audio. The people who already have cheapy surround systems in their living rooms. The people who are already familiar with BluRay and 5.1 surround sound movies.

2-channel stereo became the industry standard not because it was initially a hi-fi/audiophile product, but when it started to become available to everyone. When the cheapy phonographs were also playing in stereo and when the stereo LPs were no-more expensive than the mono versions is when the format became a success. Had it remained something that only "those" people bought the systems for, and had stereo LPs been twice as expensive as the mono versions? We'd all still be listening to mono.

People have to grow into becoming audiophiles. You have to excite them with the music first and with the listening experience. You don't try to dictate it by telling them their MP3s sound like crap and they need to buy $30 SACDs to play through multi-thousand dollar sound systems. Everyone who buys a Ferarri started out learning to enjoy automobiles and the art of driving with a crappy used Ford. You have do this from the bottom up. Marketing 101.

Those selling MC have never really seemed to understand this concept. Part of that was unavoidable because people HAD to buy special equipment to enjoy MC. They already had to be fans of the format before they ever bought it and buying it was expensive. That's never going to work beyond a small niche of folks. Now, it seems, there's at least a CHANCE that MC could reach a wider audience.

And yes, you can always put those Hi-Rez layers onto the BluRay copies as well.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

But you're talking apples and oranges here. I'm not talking about hi-rez. I'm talking about a bottom-up approach to reaching the general public with MC audio. The people who already have cheapy surround systems in their living rooms. The people who are already familiar with BluRay and 5.1 surround sound movies.

2-channel stereo became the industry standard not because it was initially a hi-fi/audiophile product, but when it started to become available to everyone. When the cheapy phonographs were also playing in stereo and when the stereo LPs were no-more expensive than the mono versions is when the format became a success. Had it remained something that only "those" people bought the systems for, and had stereo LPs been twice as expensive as the mono versions? We'd all still be listening to mono.

People have to grow into becoming audiophiles. You have to excite them with the music first and with the listening experience. You don't try to dictate it by telling them their MP3s sound like crap and they need to buy $30 SACDs to play through multi-thousand dollar sound systems. Everyone who buys a Ferarri started out learning to enjoy automobiles and the art of driving with a crappy used Ford. You have do this from the bottom up. Marketing 101.

Those selling MC have never really seemed to understand this concept. Part of that was unavoidable because people HAD to buy special equipment to enjoy MC. They already had to be fans of the format before they ever bought it and buying it was expensive. That's never going to work beyond a small niche of folks. Now, it seems, there's at least a CHANCE that MC could reach a wider audience.

And yes, you can always put those Hi-Rez layers onto the BluRay copies as well.

Low rez multi channel?

 

[key_wiz]

Low rez multi channel?

Whatever rez you like. That really isn't the issue.

You say you're OK with hi rez being a niche market as long as it survives, but it isn't GOING to survive unless there's audio product that exists with mass appeal.

But again, we're talking apples and oranges. I'm talking about way to kick-start MC audio as a product the labels believe they can sell and profit from. Appealing to the audiophile/niche market isn't the way to do that. That's what leads us down paths like Rhino Quadio.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Whatever rez you like. That really isn't the issue.

You say you're OK with hi rez being a niche market as long as it survives, but it isn't GOING to survive unless there's audio product that exists with mass appeal.

But again, we're talking apples and oranges. I'm talking about way to kick-start MC audio as a product the labels believe they can sell and profit from. Appealing to the audiophile/niche market isn't the way to do that. That's what leads us down paths like Rhino Quadio.

The same was said about vinyl, but it survives. I don't think offering average audio content in multi channel is going to do anything and entice anyone. As much as I don't embrace downloads at this time it's probably the future. I love having physical media but the industry is making a profit in the download arena and it fits nicely into their "convenience" model for portable devices.

 

[key_wiz]

Again, apples and oranges.

It doesn't matter the rez. Make all these easily-available mass-marketed surround BluRays I'm talking about as hi-rez as you like. It isn't going to drive the market one way or the other, unless you require people to purchase special equipment they don't already to have. But yeah....put that hi-rez stereo layer in there too. Why not? There's certainly room on the BluRay. One thing that probably has to happen is that as the market is shrinking, all the desired formats need to be available on a single physical product. Or they all need to be available for separate downloads.

You don't think offering multi-channel is going to do anything to entice anyone? I disagree. I think it will. Or at least I think it has a CHANCE. Now more than ever.

 

[Circular Vibes]

I think I have had a brainstorm on how to deal with the SH group. It seems to me that multichannel music not only gives a greater perspective on the sound, but also makes the speakers work more efficiently as they aren't having to deal with all the frequencies at once. Don't get me wrong, I like music in mono, stereo and multichannel. I just feel that four or more speakers can more easily do what is more intricate for one or two speakers. If my theory isn't right, we would all still be listening to one way speaker designs and tweeters/woofers/mid-ranges/etc. would have never been invented. Bi-amping would become a heresy!

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Again, apples and oranges.

It doesn't matter the rez. Make all these easily-available mass-marketed surround BluRays I'm talking about as hi-rez as you like. It isn't going to drive the market one way or the other, unless you require people to purchase special equipment they don't already to have. But yeah....put that hi-rez stereo layer in there too. Why not? There's certainly room on the BluRay. One thing that probably has to happen is that as the market is shrinking, all the desired formats need to be available on a single physical product. Or they all need to be available for separate downloads.

You don't think offering multi-channel is going to do anything to entice anyone? I disagree. I think it will. Or at least I think it has a CHANCE. Now more than ever.

What I actually said was offering AVERAGE audio quality in a multi channel form isn't going to entice anyone. You are totally dismissing the "rez" factor, which is everything. If there is no consideration of audio quality you are merely putting lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. You aren't going to develop any audiophile customer base by offering crap audio in multi channel. All you are concerned with is marketing, not what you are marketing. As far as all desired formats being on one single physical product, that would be great, but unrealistic.

My final response is that whether it's apples, oranges, walnuts or grapes it has to have some value or it's just another marketing scheme that went bad.

 

[key_wiz]

I think I have had a brainstorm on how to deal with the SH group. It seems to me that multichannel music not only gives a greater perspective on the sound, but also makes the speakers work more efficiently as they aren't having to deal with all the frequencies at once. Don't get me wrong, I like music in mono, stereo and multichannel. I just feel that four or more speakers can more easily do what is more intricate for one or two speakers. If my theory isn't right, we would all still be listening to one way speaker designs and tweeters/woofers/mid-ranges/etc. would have never been invented. Bi-amping would become a heresy!

One of my debates with one of these stereo-obsessed guys involved his theory that one of the problems with multi-channel is that it can never sound 'correct' because 4 or 5 speakers pointing at each other creates problems within the listening room that degrade the audio. Or some such.

I'm sure those problems could easily be resolved with more-expensive power cables, but....whatever....

 

[bmoura]

What I actually said was offering AVERAGE audio quality in a multi channel form isn't going to entice anyone. You are totally dismissing the "rez" factor, which is everything. If there is no consideration of audio quality you are merely putting lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. You aren't going to develop any audiophile customer base by offering crap audio in multi channel.

The good news is that there are a lot of High Resolution, high quality Multichannel Audio out there for Surround Sound and Audiophile fans. Just looking at Multichannel DSD downloads, there are over 500 such downloads available today! Good times.

 

[himey]

To be fair, I think there would be a lot more MC fans over there if someone would remix The Monkees' albums into surround....

No, this is the problem "...Truth be told, 5.1 in a proper room with equipment that could get the job done might cost $250K or even more."

 

[key_wiz]

What I actually said was offering AVERAGE audio quality in a multi channel form isn't going to entice anyone. You are totally dismissing the "rez" factor, which is everything. If there is no consideration of audio quality you are merely putting lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. You aren't going to develop any audiophile customer base by offering crap audio in multi channel. All you are concerned with is marketing, not what you are marketing. As far as all desired formats being on one single physical product, that would be great, but unrealistic.

My final response is that whether it's apples, oranges, walnuts or grapes it has to have some value or it's just another marketing scheme that went bad.

Then, with all due respect, I'm not sure you're understanding marketing much. If average audio quality didn't entice anyone, there would never have BEEN a music industry in the first place. 99% of all the music ever sold has been to average people buying average quality audio to play on average quality systems. And actually, I'm being kind. Because so much of what has been sold and marketed over the years has been outright crap. From AM radio to Close-n-Plays to boom boxes to MP3s. Hi-Rez is great, and by all means make it as available as possible and make the mass-marketed stuff sound as good as possible, but higher-quality audio isn't what is going to save the industry. And it certainly isn't going to increase the number of MC titles available on the market, which is the subject I'm addressing here.

As far as it all being available on one single physical product, that is already being done now to a large degree with some of these reissues from the likes of Steven Wilson and such. You get the 5.1 in both DTS and DD, you get the redbook 2 channel and the hi-rez 2 channel. And sometimes a needledrop of the vinyl as well. But yes, of course you won't please everybody. There will always be people for whom their favorite format is left off.

But yes, I'm am very MUCH concerned with what I am marketing as much as the marketing itself. In this case, I'm trying to turn on people who already have 5.1 surround sound systems to buying audio product to play on them. The appeal there is to go after the SURROUND aspect of the product, not the resolution of the signal. (But give them that too....why not if it's convenient and affordable to do so). Most of these people have crap systems anyway. And even if they had great systems, they aren't going to hear the difference between regular CD quality and Hi-Rez. But they WILL hear the difference between 5 channel and 2 channel audio. Regardless of the sound quality. So THERE'S the market niche to go after and try to build.

 

[Quad Linda]

??????????????????????????

No, this is the problem "...Truth be told, 5.1 in a proper room with equipment that could get the job done might cost $250K or even more."

 

[Gmat25]

I absolutely love multichannel music, as does everyone on this forum. I also know that there is room in the world for audiophiles who love HiRez stereo (or even in some cases mono music - like the excellent Soultrane)

 

[key_wiz]

No, this is the problem "...Truth be told, 5.1 in a proper room with equipment that could get the job done might cost $250K or even more."

Haha! Yes, I read that thread as well....

 

[Circular Vibes]

No, this is the problem "...Truth be told, 5.1 in a proper room with equipment that could get the job done might cost $250K or even more."

Then I guess I better throw all my quad gear in the dumpster, it will never "sound proper". I guess I should start saving up for a $50,000 mono setup to try a bit of happiness.

 

[bmoura]

To be fair, I think there would be a lot more MC fans over there if someone would remix The Monkees' albums into surround....

And there is a 4.0 Quad mix of the Monkees' biggest hits on the Internet! It's called "Quarters". Not the highest resolution/quality sound, but very interesting.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

The good news is that there is a lot of High Resolution, high quality Multichannel Audio out there for Surround Sound and Audiophile fans. Just looking at Multichannel DSD downloads, there are over 500 such downloads available today! Good times.

I think a lot of us love the physical media because we are collectors at heart. The thing I really miss about vinyl was that beautiful art on the album cover. SACD's and DVD-A's and Blu Rays don't offer that lush artwork, but it's better than saying to your house guests "would you like to see my hi rez storage device". I suppose I will eventually cave in and get some downloads, but I will be kicking and screaming when I finally do it. But I do think there is still a lot of hi rez music out there for me and this year so far has produced some impressive titles. I'm happy with what I have and what I see coming in the future. You are right GOOD TIMES and let's enjoy it!

As I'm typing this post I'm watching David Gilmour Live at Gdansk that I recorded on the HD channel Palladia; good times indeed!

 

[ProgRules]

But you're talking apples and oranges here. I'm not talking about hi-rez. I'm talking about a bottom-up approach to reaching the general public with MC audio. The people who already have cheapy surround systems in their living rooms. The people who are already familiar with BluRay and 5.1 surround sound movies.

2-channel stereo became the industry standard not because it was initially a hi-fi/audiophile product, but when it started to become available to everyone. When the cheapy phonographs were also playing in stereo and when the stereo LPs were no-more expensive than the mono versions is when the format became a success. Had it remained something that only "those" people bought the systems for, and had stereo LPs been twice as expensive as the mono versions? We'd all still be listening to mono.

People have to grow into becoming audiophiles. You have to excite them with the music first and with the listening experience. You don't try to dictate it by telling them their MP3s sound like crap and they need to buy $30 SACDs to play through multi-thousand dollar sound systems. Everyone who buys a Ferarri started out learning to enjoy automobiles and the art of driving with a crappy used Ford. You have do this from the bottom up. Marketing 101.

Those selling MC have never really seemed to understand this concept. Part of that was unavoidable because people HAD to buy special equipment to enjoy MC. They already had to be fans of the format before they ever bought it and buying it was expensive. That's never going to work beyond a small niche of folks. Now, it seems, there's at least a CHANCE that MC could reach a wider audience.

And yes, you can always put those Hi-Rez layers onto the BluRay copies as well.

Hi Key- welcome to this awesome forum.

I agree w/ much you say and it would be logical except for one fact: very few people take the time to sit down and listen to music exclusively. In today's fast-paced world, music is consumed from portables, in the car, through the computer, etc. I believe it's not that hi-rez and/or multi-channel fans are a niche market, it's that those who consume music in a dedicated listening environment are a niche market. While many have the capability for surround sound w/ their home theater set-ups, most of those rarely listen to music through them. They'd prefer to watch a movie or TV, b/c it engages you more fully.

One of the reasons I enjoy music is it gives my mind free reign to go wherever the music leads you; it requires imagination. But for the masses, using their Mind/ imagination is what they are trying to escape when they choose entertainment. It's similar to the situation w/ books; most choose TV or movies over reading.

I think it is part of the zeitgeist that dedicated music-listening has been on the decline for a while. With so much to accomplish in today's complicated world, it's hard to carve out time to just sit back and enjoy music. I have felt this myself. There are times when lost in the music that my mind wanders to all of the things I need to do; sometimes, this is just a temporary distraction, but other times it results in curtailing the listening session. We have so many "things to do" these days (rather ironic that given all the "time-saving" devices we seem to be more hurried than ever) that it has become difficult to just relax and enjoy something. It is easier to relax and watch a movie or TV because we are more fully engaged and those nagging thoughts aren't so prevalent (though they are still there).

All that being said, though, I think our niche market is still big and robust enough to make what you suggest profitable. And I think we are seeing the beginning of a renaissance of surround. Steven Wilson has shown how to do it and has given evidence that it can be profitable; HFPA seems to have gotten the message and is starting to release more 5.1 mixes; AF is testing the market; etc. This year is shaping up to be a great year for surround and hopefully just the tip of a burgeoning iceberg.

As re: AF and HFPA: w/ Universal starting surround and w/ rumors that Sony and Warner would be joining the HFPA ranks, I wondered where AF would get the extant surround mixes to release. Wouldn't the labels want to save them for their own HFPA releases? It occurred to me that maybe the labels would give AF some titles to release and use their trial as a gauge- possibly the reason Sony and Warner still haven't taken the HFPA plunge?

It occurs to me that even though surround releases are a trickle compared to the short-lived heyday, they have been on a steady rise in the recent past. Perhaps lots of toe-dipping that has resulted in some good, if not great returns and have led to more releases. I'm cautiously optimistic that surround will become a vital, if limited market. I just know that the past 6 months have been a delight for this surround-lover and the next 6 months promises more if not better; hopefully that trend will continue.