Yet it did not kill DVD-Video.........
What is obvious in hindsight was not at all obvious then. This was in 1999-2000.
DVD-Video was replacing VHS. It was a huge leap.
DVD-Audio was supposed to replace CDs. Not such a big leap.
Yet it did not kill DVD-Video.........
As far as marketing, remember, there were not many ads for Blu-ray until the format war was over and HD-DVD had lost. DVD-A had a competitor in SACD, and Sony Music refused to put out their titles on DVD-A (under corporate direction from their parent). It would be as if Warner Bros still refused to put out titles on Blu-ray.
A very curious move, going to Dualdisc. As an afterthought, I always preferred the "Deluxe Edition" approach, like WB did with the Flaming Lips, Morph the Cat, Running on Empty, Songs for Beginners, the R.E.M. discs, Seal's, and Capitol's "Love".
The way the majors "throw in" a DVD-V with a Blu-Ray purchase for a movie these days, you would think that putting a CD in with a DVD-A and charging extra would have made everyone happy.
Jimby,
Am I wrong in thinking that the DualDisc helped tank DVD-Audio? I mean, at first, as "fans", we were told the DualDisc was conceived to allow DVD-A discs to play in CD players, giving the consumer something they could use everywhere. However, the DualDisc had no requirement to have a DVD-A side. It turned out that most of them had "Enhanced" stereo at 16/48, or something similar, as the DVD-A DualDiscs were sought after by DVD-A fans (Brothers in Arms, Slippery When Wet, Talking Heads), the non-DVD-A Dualdiscs seemed to cause no stir at all.
The fact that Sony jumped on the DualDisc deal was puzzling. Did they do it to help torpedo DVD-Audio, or were they really interested. Their Dualdiscs conflicted directly with their own SACDs (John Mayer, etc), and signaled not just the end of DVD-A, but the termination of their own format as well.
A very curious move, going to Dualdisc. As an afterthought, I always preferred the "Deluxe Edition" approach, like WB did with the Flaming Lips, Morph the Cat, Running on Empty, Songs for Beginners, the R.E.M. discs, Seal's, and Capitol's "Love".
The way the majors "throw in" a DVD-V with a Blu-Ray purchase for a movie these days, you would think that putting a CD in with a DVD-A and charging extra would have made everyone happy.
Warner was neutral at the start of the Blu-ray vs. HD DVD format war, releasing most titles on both formats with a rare release exclusive to HD DVD and even rarer release exclusive to Blu-ray with a big majority released on both formats using identical encodes. When Warner dropped support for HD DVD, that ended that format war. There was no way Sony was ever going to release a DVD-A nor was Warner ever going to release an SACD in the US. Panasonic never made an SACD player and Sony never made a DVD-A player so the DVD-A vs. SACD format war was not going to have a resolution and neither format would ever amount to much.
Chris
Just for the record, I hated Dual Disc.
.......As far as including a CD with a DVD-A, that was a non-starter because of the extra expense, and the fact that the whole market was moving to MP3s. .....
Don't you guys get tired of talking about all this ancient history?
I still say it doesn't have to be too late for dvd-a. It can be a great format, can support various sample rates and bit rates, and with the ability to add dvd-v content can be easily backwards compatible with the many home theater systems out there, and with the 5.1 and quad mixes just sitting in the vaults, there is a ton of material ready to go, and plenty of multi-tracks just waiting for remixing.
All the labels would have to do is grow a pair, and use the technology just waiting to be used.
Instead, we sit in the dark ages with CD, and inferior less than CD quality file formats. The labels just don't get it, it's not about the music to them.
Sorry, I meant Universal Studios, not Warner.
You must have totally missed the points I made earlier in this thread. There are not enough people who care about Hi-Res audio or surround music to make the format viable. It doesn't matter how great the technology is, or how many masters are sitting in the vault. Selling 5k or 10k units of any format is not a viable option for the labels. If it were 100k units, it might make more sense, but we rarely sell that many units of DVD video concerts (even top name acts). At some point reality has to kick in (and it's usually on Wednesday mornings when we look at the Soundscan numbers for the previous week.)
#1 Question of great concern many of us here have:
Are the record companies taking proper care of Master Multi-track Tapes and Quadraphonic/Stereo Master mixes Tapes in their vaults from decades past by transferring them to digital form so the material is not lost to the ravages of time? Or do they need a profit incentive to do this?
Again, thank you for your help.
Jim
I disagree. 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 for people to buy into it. I can't buy what the labels won't sell me.
It may be that the labels can't sell enough to make the profit that they feel is necessary for it to be worthwhile. I can't help but feel like it's corporate greed that drove the decision to dump dvd-a.
@: You're right. I have no idea what I am talking about.
That's not what I said...
Enter your email address to join: