new post at audio revolution

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

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

quadtrade

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 3, 2002
Messages
1,517
Location
Ugene
This was posted by the fellow who owns audio revolution on that site.

http://www.avrevforum.com/showthread.php?t=1666



Record Labels Ignore Blu-ray Format To Replace The Ailing CD

Blu-ray is the reigning HD disc champion having recently beaten out HD DVD in a bloody war for High Definition supremacy. Yet, in a surprise to no one who follows the music industry, the record industry is basically doing nothing about Blu-ray as a media for the future. Sony/BMG has stuck their toes in the water with some 24 bit/96 kHz audio soundtracks using Dolby TrueHD on Blu-ray for artists like Celine Dion, Dave Matthews and David Gilmore, but those are music video discs not just audio discs. There are a few handfuls of 24/96 titles for download from Music Giants and iTrax but that is about the extent of what you can buy for music in high resolution these days.

During the lose-lose battle between SACD and DVD-Audio in the early 2000s, there were a number of issues at hand that kept mainstream consumers (far) away including: a lack of any volume of meaningful titles beyond Pink Floyd’s "Dark Side of the Moon" and Queen’s "A Night at the Opera", players priced at $1,000 for far too long, the need for a new receiver or preamp with at least one, six channel analog input, the need for eight or more cables to make a connection, and lastly the overall parallelizing fear from major labels that consumers might steal their music in high resolution. We now know that people were going to steal what they were going to steal and that the four major labels, as they slide down the toilet along with their yearly sales, as well as their cultural relevance, can today, at best, sell you a $0.99 download that is one quarter the resolution of a Compact Disc - a format that is over 25 years old. Best yet is a computer company gets a king’s ransom of the profit from the sale in the transaction.

Blu-ray offers solutions to all of SACD's and DVD-Audio's weaknesses, yet it is being completely ignored. Blu-ray players today are priced closer to $300, not $1,000, and are likely to get significantly less expensive in the next six to 12 months. Blu-ray players offer meaningful copy protection via HDCP (post hate mail on AVRevForum.com) over a one-cable solution, instead of the upwards of nine cables needed for a DVD-Audio machine. Unlike DVD-Audio and SACD players, there are millions of Blu-ray players in the market right now thanks to the Playstation 3, plus the stand-alone units. Millions more Blu-ray players will follow in the months after the death of HD DVD and as consumers head toward the 2008 holiday season, where Blu-ray is sure to be a big hit. A hit record or important archival album released today on Blu-ray, complete with HD video supplemental materials, Dolby TrueHD and or DTS-HD Master audio tracks would actually offer the customer a value for his or her $20, and possibly would inspire them to look at investing in a music collection that is something more than a bunch of files waiting for a hard drive to crash.

Step One - Bring back the oldies but goodies from SACD and DVD-Audio:
The first step in launching high-resolution music on Blu-ray would be to repackage the top 100 to 250 titles from DVD-Audio and SACD in a meaningful and value-laden package, targeted to music enthusiasts and audiophiles. Now, audiophiles as we all know, cannot make or break any audio format, but they do start trends. The momentum that comes from audiophiles and music enthusiasts would start the ball rolling with relatively little cost. In fact, artists today would be more likely to consider new venues to sell their music now as opposed to back in 2000 when they thought they could fight music on SACD and or DVD-Audio.

Step Two - Look to back-catalog titles for the future of audio:
The four major labels need to remaster their top 100 selling records into a high-resolution format (like uncompressed PCM or DTS-HD or Dolby TrueHD) and pair it with HD video content, HD video interviews and beyond. It should be different for each release. Kids might like video games along with their discs. Boomers might like to see what Eric Clapton looks like at his age, close-up in HD. To each their own. All the records don't have to have surround sound tracks. In fact, they can be re-sold later with surround sound as a “remastered” release, but they do need high-resolution stereo audio such as 24-bit/96kHz (or higher) resolution. To the music buying public this is a better value proposition than buying a crappy, over-priced Compact Disc for $14.95 that can be stolen for free off the Internet. Imagine how many Boomers would buy the top 100 Blue Note records in high resolution on Blu-ray even if sold as a boxed set. Imagine how many pre-teen kids would buy a Hannah Montana record loaded with supplemental materials just play them on their PS3. It would be a platinum hit on both fronts, and would represent a profit model that is exponentially superior to that of selling low-resolution downloads.

Step Three - Lights, Camera, Rock and Roll Action:
The majors could quickly repackage the DVD-Video disc concert videos into HD, considering many of them were shot natively in high definition. Remastered surround sound tracks and beautiful high-definition video would make the “new album” be an audio/video experience that is worth the $20 per disc price of admission. Next, send all of the biggest and best artists on the majors out on tour this summer with HD cameras and recording equipment capable of capturing an event in HD. Record bands rehearsing. Record bands playing small venues. Record bands backstage. Make the “new album” be more in tune with a society that socially networks. Make the “new album” on Blu-ray more in tune with people who worship celebrities and watch reality TV. It's time record labels understand that Myspace and Facebook are a bigger deal than any new artists they have in their stables, and that it is time to really change the product being sold, beyond silly downloads.

Conclusion
Now that I have teased you with a concept that you would spend money on, don’t expect for a minute that the majors are smart enough to realize that their problem is their CDs, and Downloads aren’t worth the money people pay for them. This is in fact the reason why their sales are down more than 20 billion a year in domestic sales – not kids stealing music off the Internet. Music sold just fine when I was a 10 year-old kid, recording songs from FM radio and making cassette recordings. The music was better then and the CD (a brand new format at the time) was irresistibly sexy. Blu-ray is that for today’s market. It's time for the labels to wake up to the cold reality that they suck at doing business. They have no clue why their customers are spending money on movies in HD, games in HD, televisions in HD, while they are selling music in one quarter the resolution of what you can get from a CD sold in 1983. It's pathetic, but it's true. And, what is even more pathetic is that the majors are unlikely to do anything meaningful about it.

by: Jerry Del Colliano
 
All of which is probably true...but the consumer is also to blame, most of them always settling for less quality regardless of how much it costs them.

ED :)
 
Nothing new under the sun... it's not today's history that the major sucks at doing business... so i'm not expecting anything musically blu-ray related.
 
And to make matters worse, it's yet another format to try to sell to consumers as 'the next big thing'....which it is, but that means buying a new deck, TV, etc., etc....and most folks simply won't pay that freight, opting to settle for existing formats like DVD for movies, iPod or PC's for music.

I don't mind buying into a new format--many of us have done that more than once :D--but then we invariably watch the usual bullshit unfold: format touted as 'next big thing'; selected titles introduced onto the market, usually priced higher than 'normal' product; consumer confusion over what the new format is, what it does, what they need to use it with, why they should bother at all; followed by more selective releases, but never enough; followed by consumer apathy and disinterest, followed then by label apathy and disinterest, leading to dead or moribund format. Which is what happens when you can't convince anyone beyond audio/videophiles that what you're offering is truly special and worth investing in. And of course in a world where the consumer has so many options of variable quality and pricing, they always go with the lowest price/lower quality item, proving(if nothing else)that it's often an impulse buy and that quality is important but secondary to price.

Same old story, destined to be repeated yet again. The owner of these 'golden geese' always seems to kill slowly by neglect and ignorance, eh? Capable of creation but not ready to hold on the for long haul necessary to get something to work on a mass scale, thus making it affordable to all, yet retaining high standards all around.

ED :)
 
WB should take a few of the already produced DVD-Audio titles and release them on Blu-Ray. Start with a title like "Fleetwood Mac Rumors". That disc has quite a few extras, lyrics, etc. Throw on a few more extras and push it as a HiRez audio and surround music release. "Hear your old albums like never before". Same stuff as DVD-A was, but more folks have the players and they don't need the extra analog cables.

Sell them in the Blu-Ray section and see what happens. It won't cost them a lot and it would be interesting to see if they would sell.

Do titles like "Rumors", "Brothers in Arms", "Brain Salad Surgery", "Hotel California" and let the chips fall where they may.
 
Jon,
I like your idea about Fleetwood Mac. There is a pretty good Classic Albums DVD out there. There are a lot of those available. Combine a making of documentary and videos with Hi Rez? All I can say is WOW! If they did something like that I would have to rethink my position regarding Blow Ray.
 
Last edited:
Blu-ray is terrific but nobody is going to buy a new HDTV to get Blu-ray. Fortunately, HDTV's are a hot item, already in about 40% of US homes and a significant percentage of HDTV owners are going to buy Blu-ray players after looking around for the best possible source for their new HDTV. Now that HD DVD is gone, a big stumbling block is out of the way. The BDA is predicting 10 million Blu-ray players will be sold in 2008 and of course a big part of that will be this holiday season. I am optimistic that this high quality video and audio format is going to reach a much larger market than the previous better than DVD and better than CD formats that have already basically come and gone, SACD, DVD-A and HD DVD. I own them all and as far as I am concerned, the correct format is left standing.

Chris
 
Prior to getting my Blu Ray player, I thought of hi def discs almost exclusively as much better video transfers and *somewhat* better sound once in a while. I now see (hear actually) it quite differently! I think it depends on the context of a proper demonstration at retail. Maybe the Disney roadshow mall type events are the answer; anybody see one? Missed it here about 2 weeks ago.

Love Jon's idea of high profile catalog album releases; they're only the rehash of DVD-A to US and US ALONE because nobody even knew about SACD & DVD-A in the mainstream, right?. We could just fib and say Blu Ray was really the magic ingredient to make high def surround possible. I don't care what is said, I just want new titles!

Still have a hard time thinking the major labels will ever get a clue about how to market MUSIC in the 21st century.
 
Sorry to piss on the BD Bonfire, but it is *not* about to become the next big thing for surround music.
It's too expensive, and now that Sony have a monopoly (all allegations of bribery aside, the reason BD has "won" the "war" is because Hollywood wanted better CP/DRM, and with BD AACS is mandatory. With HD DVD it was not, and what Hollywood wants the industry delivers to it.)
AACS is dreadfully expensive and is also banged onto the content owners to fork out for, whether they want it or not they must have it.
It's also a VIDEO format, not an audio one.
Problems galore too - discs will not play reliably in expensive set top players, never mind anything else.
Authoring is brutally expensive, requiring either Sony's Blu Print or Sonic Scenarist.
Both these are $50,000 plus mandatory extras - Blu Print has a $7k to $10k "service agreement" that is also mandatory.
No other application can deliver replicable content. It's BD-R and BD-RE straight down the line.
Costs per title are serious. You are looking at over $30,000 per title - before replication costs & authoring costs - just for the mandated licenses
alone. And it will not get any cheaper, as Sony now have the monopoly they have been looking for since the CD patents expired.
Add all this up, and you will see that only Hollywood can really afford this. Small labels have no chance at all, and this is a disaster.

There is still no european version - PAL TV resolutions are unsupported (no 25p at all, no 50i properly supported & no plans to introduce this.
 
. And it will not get any cheaper, as Sony now have the monopoly they have been looking for since the CD patents expired.
Add all this up, and you will see that only Hollywood can really afford this. Small labels have no chance at all, and this is a disaster.

Bless you Neil, for the truth about this. We could have never done DTS cds at that cost. We Had around 5 grand into quad remakes.
 
I wonder how Alexander Jero's "SurroundSound Records" will do with Blu-Ray. I would guess they started with HD-DVD because of the cost of production and licensing. Now that they're stuck with Blu-Ray, their costs will probably skyrocket.
 

Bless you Neil, for the truth about this. We could have never done DTS cds at that cost. We Had around 5 grand into quad remakes.


Nailed on the head perfectly.
This is the precise reason why even Blu-Ray will fail.
Don't forget that dvd started to sell in huge quantities when two factors merged:
- possibility to crack the protection (thus converting to other format)
- cheaper chinese players.

I don't see anything similar goin' on for blu-ray anytime soon.
 
You know, I'm spending about the same on new SACD titles now as I was when the DVD-A - SACD format opened up, what 7 years ago? My collection is pretty large, and growing. SA-CD net keeps showing more and more new titles; albeit mostly classical-jazz, which is fine with me. I'm sorry that the likes of Ann Sophie Mutter; Jane Monheit; and Diana Krall don't seem to be coming out in Hi-Rez; so I don't buy them anymore. But if the new players will include SACD & DVD-Audio, and people realize that multichannel music is good - why can't the format's grow? I have absolutely no interest in seeing Blu Ray develop as music format. I have yet to hear it has better sound than what we have. Am I wrong?
 
I am saving my money for the SHM-CD (Super High Material CD) format.
It's great, I pay more, but get nothing new.
This is a record companys dream.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how Alexander Jero's "SurroundSound Records" will do with Blu-Ray. I would guess they started with HD-DVD because of the cost of production and licensing. Now that they're stuck with Blu-Ray, their costs will probably skyrocket.

I just would like to confirm as an independent content provider that we finally come to the point where we feel comfortable working with Blu-ray as well as HD DVD. And I would like to hope that our first Blu-ray release will be the answer to many questions. Look for official announcement from High-Def Digest in the next few days.
 
Before the labels start releasing another round of tired "classic" rock titles that are still being played to death on commercial radio stations, I really really hope they do some marketing research on who is buying BD players.

* Is it 40+ year olds, and do they still listen to those albums after all these years? Actually do they regularly listen to music at all anymore?

* Or is it 20-somethings that grew up with on-screen displays as the norm and pushing a button labeled "OK" to get something going?

Because if it's the latter and all they see is a bunch of music their parents listened to, I can easily see them backing away from that display and running the other way.

BTW I'm 42.
 
Sorry to piss on the BD Bonfire, but it is *not* about to become the next big thing for surround music.
It's too expensive, and now that Sony have a monopoly (all allegations of bribery aside, the reason BD has "won" the "war" is because Hollywood wanted better CP/DRM, and with BD AACS is mandatory. With HD DVD it was not, and what Hollywood wants the industry delivers to it.)
AACS is dreadfully expensive and is also banged onto the content owners to fork out for, whether they want it or not they must have it.
It's also a VIDEO format, not an audio one.
Problems galore too - discs will not play reliably in expensive set top players, never mind anything else.
Authoring is brutally expensive, requiring either Sony's Blu Print or Sonic Scenarist.
Both these are $50,000 plus mandatory extras - Blu Print has a $7k to $10k "service agreement" that is also mandatory.
No other application can deliver replicable content. It's BD-R and BD-RE straight down the line.
Costs per title are serious. You are looking at over $30,000 per title - before replication costs & authoring costs - just for the mandated licenses
alone. And it will not get any cheaper, as Sony now have the monopoly they have been looking for since the CD patents expired.
Add all this up, and you will see that only Hollywood can really afford this. Small labels have no chance at all, and this is a disaster.

There is still no european version - PAL TV resolutions are unsupported (no 25p at all, no 50i properly supported & no plans to introduce this.

And look at the recent drop-outs/popping sounds in the audio of certain titles as folks bitstream TrueHD and DTS-MA tracks (documented at AVSForum, etc.).

I wouldn't be surprised if the labels stay far away from Blu for the next 12-18 months or so as they keep an eye on demand, costs, and compatibility issues.
 
Back
Top