NOW tell me Sony are not full of Shit!

[neil wilkes]

I quote this from the Bjork website.
It is difficult to tell what is quoted from Derek Birkett at One Little Indian, and what is quoted from Hoffman.

from stevehoffman forums, someone wrote OLI and asked them why surrounded wasnt hi-res, which would explain why Volta isn't either, though it doesnt explain as to why Volta isnt a Dualdisc as opposed to a cd+dvd:

hi

both warners and universal - our partners in different territories on
the bjork project - have decided to abandon dvda and sacd - and use dvd
as the universal format

sadly there is not enough demand for sacd and dvda to make releasing in
this format viable for us

the main music retailers no longer support the format -which might
account for its decline in sales

db
derek birkett
one LITTLE indian records
34 trinity crescent
london sw17 7ae
telephone 0208 772 7600
fax 0208 772 7601
-and-

Hi

Thanks for the reply

I agree with you - sacd and dvda are far superior to dvd

Frustratingly we mastered the bjork albums in sacd and dvda

It would have been possible for us to release the box set as an all
format release - covering cd / dvd / dvda /sacd - but we could not

We worked with rhino in the states and universal in europe on this
project

rhino paid for the dvda mastering - but decided to go with dvd rather
than dvda

Universal paid for the sacd mastering - but decided to go with dvd
rather than sacd

Sadly it was a question of timing - had we been 6 months earlier, before
the format change decision - the box set would have been in production
with both sacd and dvda

As I mentioned before - on top of the problems of two multi national
corporations refusing to use competitors software and hardware there is
also an issue with retailers

The major retailers found that the two formats took up too much rack
space and confused the consumer - so they together with the major record
companies decided that they did not want to back several different
formats - and together they decided dvd was going to be the one format
that everyone backed

We have been approached by both universal and warners to consider
remastering bjorks dvd's in blue ray hd dvd - but again each company has
backed a different format!

This is seriously bad.
It looks like the industry is trying to FORCE Blu Ray/HD DVD.
Address all letters of complaint to the address in the quote.

What has - again - been "overlooked" (some might say completely ignored) is that DVD-A/V plays on ALL DVD players. See Vespertine & Medulla for this.
Additionally, why are we essentially being told we cannot have High Resolution?
It's all bollocks and industry politics IMHO.
WHY are the labels allowing the distribution to dictate release formats?

It's bloody pathetic.

 

[Lucanu]

I agree with you completely.

Should we call it Mafia or lobby?

 

[winopener]

TOO MUCH RACK SPACE????????
Has anyone ever seen a BIG rack space for sacd or dvd-a that was be at least 3% of the CD rack space?
Heck, i've been on Tower back int he glorious days and while sacd/dvda were present the rack space was nowhere near 1% of cd and 5% or dvd!
What a bad joke....

 

[solaris]

Dear customer
We have heard you and know you are interested in a suurounding mix of your favorite SONY music. We have tried SACD but it never caught on. We then put out your favorite SONY artist on DVD with surrounding mixes but sales were poor. We thought of putting out a music Blu-ray disc, but thought that might confuse the consumer at a critical time for Blu-ray. So we decided to stick with the traditional CD. Remember keep on buying your favorite Sony music on CD and also F%$# Y#%

Sony

 

[Chris Gerhard]

It is a mess, but DVD-A was given a good shot by Warner's and SACD a good shot by Sony and both bombed big time. I got out my Dylan SACD's and R.E.M. and Doors DVD-A's just yesterday trying to decide what to play, the discs are terrific and I can't understand why they weren't a success. As long as there is both Blu-ray and HD DVD, I don't think anybody will try with either of those formats. Retailers don't want to carry SACD and/or DVD-A, sales are low and confusion high. I don't have the answer, and I am not sure there is one, but I do think the best chance is a long shot, Blu-ray gains a significant market share, let's say 25% of DVD, HD DVD is abandoned and it is determined the 25% of homes with Blu-ray players are a good market for high resolution surround. I am certain the format can deliver everything we would want and it should be secure so the music companies will like it. It is several years if it happens, but I don't have any other possible solutions.

Chris

 

[neil wilkes]

Chris, sorry but you are wrong.
Neither was really given "A Good Shot". Far from it. Sony BMG refused to allow any of their subsidiary labels to release on DVD-A, and vice-versa. Both sides completely failed to promote the formats at all. SACD was not needed, and should never have been introduced - it was driven by greed, and the attitude that "If we cannot own the game, nobody is playing".
Blu Ray is not going to change anything, if anything it will make matters much, much worse.
1 - Up-front licensing fees in the UK are £20,000 per title. That is $40,000.
This is before glass mastering, replication, packaging etc - it is just the license fee.
2 - Authoring is currently "on offer" from Sony DADC at £10,000 per title.
BTW - Sony DADC are the sole replication company here. They will - and do - refuse to accept any "masters" from the cheap authoring tools which are considered for consumer home use only.
The costs are outrageous, and will not get cheaper. What label will risk $60K up front? Plus mixing/mastering time? Plus replication?
Why you think Blu Ray is the answer is beyond me, it really is.

We already HAVE the answer, it is the Music DVD holding ALL forms so it will play on ALL players. MLP, DTS, PCM, DD. All on the same disc.
What is the problem with this?
Nobody needs new gear, it will work on what everyone has.
Which - I suspect - is the whole issue, and Sony will not get to sell a whole load of new players/amplifiers all over again.

It is a political decision, and it is telling us all to go to hell.

 

[Felix E. Martinez]

Just sent that to my Rhino contact. Really interested in his response. Will post back when I receive.

 

[Chris Gerhard]

Chris, sorry but you are wrong.
Neither was really given "A Good Shot". Far from it. Sony BMG refused to allow any of their subsidiary labels to release on DVD-A, and vice-versa. Both sides completely failed to promote the formats at all. SACD was not needed, and should never have been introduced - it was driven by greed, and the attitude that "If we cannot own the game, nobody is playing".
Blu Ray is not going to change anything, if anything it will make matters much, much worse.
1 - Up-front licensing fees in the UK are £20,000 per title. That is $40,000.
This is before glass mastering, replication, packaging etc - it is just the license fee.
2 - Authoring is currently "on offer" from Sony DADC at £10,000 per title.
BTW - Sony DADC are the sole replication company here. They will - and do - refuse to accept any "masters" from the cheap authoring tools which are considered for consumer home use only.
The costs are outrageous, and will not get cheaper. What label will risk $60K up front? Plus mixing/mastering time? Plus replication?
Why you think Blu Ray is the answer is beyond me, it really is.

We already HAVE the answer, it is the Music DVD holding ALL forms so it will play on ALL players. MLP, DTS, PCM, DD. All on the same disc.
What is the problem with this?
Nobody needs new gear, it will work on what everyone has.
Which - I suspect - is the whole issue, and Sony will not get to sell a whole load of new players/amplifiers all over again.

It is a political decision, and it is telling us all to go to hell.

Of course you can disagree but Warner released a good number of very good quality DVD-A titles, I must have over 30 myself. Sony had an even greater number of SACD releases that were high quality, I am sure I have at least 60. The market didn't buy them. I know most here thinks Sony blah, blah and Silverline blah, blah and that caused the formats to flop. If the there was a significant demand, the high quality releases would have been a success and the market corrects itself and poor quality and poor marketing gets corrected and things start to roll. The consumer had little interest. You can't keep consumers from something they want and you can't force them to buy something they don't want. Despite the marketing philosophy of creating demand for any product by advertising, for the most part in my lifetime products that meet needs succeed and those that don't fail.

Could SACD or DVD-A succeeded and resulted in a small but profitable market? I think it could have if only one had existed and was supported by all labels and all major music sellers. For reasons unknown to me, some companies supported DVD-A and some SACD, SACD was secure and should have been everbody's choice in my opinion, but it didn't happen. My opinion is DVD-A was not needed.

Chris

 

[JonUrban]

I agree with Neil.

SACD should have stayed a STEREO product, if it existed at all. It could have replaced the "Gold" disc market and the stereo audiophiles could bask in their delight. All labels, Sony, WB, anyone who wanted to release these discs, could have done so, creating a stereo ultimate disc.

DVD-Audio should have been supported by ALL labels, Sony included, for their surround releases. Almost every home has a DVD player, and many have Dolby Digital and some sort of 5.1 system for video. These people would have been able to enjoy a surround presentation in low rez, or upgraded to HiRez. If this had become the norm, the desire to upgrade to HiRez may have grown as folks with collections of DVD-A discs would be interested in getting to hear the difference between DD/DTS and DVD-A HiRez.

We are about SURROUND SOUND. While many of us appreciate a quality stereo mastering, there are other places on the net for that.

In my opinion, a DVD-Audio disc provides the perfect medium for SURROUND music, and should have been the only surround format. It's funny. It's almost like Sony put surround on the SACD format as an afterthought, as a way to derail the DVD-A format, which trumpeted surround sound from the start. We all know that the first SACD players and the first SACD discs were stereo only. I still think of a guy I knew who bought one of the first SACD players from Sony, for $2000 I believe, and he was horrified to find out that after that investment, he would not be able to play the surround layer on the newer SACDs.

You can argue anyway you like, but as great a company Sony has been and may still be, they blew it big time with SACD, and in doing so, they killed the surround sound music boom of the early 2000's.

(And don't start with the "There are 4500 SACDs listed on sa-cd.net". How many versions of Vivaldi's Four Seasons do YOU need?)

 

[Manmc]

" My opinion is DVD-A was not needed. "

Nonsense , Dvd-A was already finalised in the mid 90s when Meridian flew to Japan to make a presentation to the Dvd Forum. Sacd came along much later when , as usual with Sony , it was neither better nor needed , just 'proprietary' ...ie. they made easy money on it.

Similarly , Bluray comes along unfinished , incomplete but claiming high ground , war over , ; and laden with exclusive studio support for things that it , in some instances , it still cant deliver . This also ignores the fact that BOTH Warners and Universal support Hd-Dvd at the moment so that format would have just as justifiable a claim for any hi-rez re-releases.

Jon is right . Either Dvd-V or Dvd-A are playable on Dvd players and Sony
screwed the whole thing with their ' new , proprietary technology ( which was never going to be adopted by the movie industry , for example, ensuring global victory )

Music industry is crap. Even if it comes to a downloading future at least
the musicians will get most of the cash.

Kudos to the likes of Porcupine Tree who really contribute support to 5.1 against all the odds.


~M~

 

[BARKSTAR]

I personally prefer the overall idea of SACD over DVD-A. The way the format can hold both a high resolution stereo and multichannel layer along with the fact that a hybrid disc is backward compatible for normal CD playback and can be ripped to a PC for use in your MP3 player etc makes it the ideal format that should have replaced the CD.

I have a few DVD-A discs and when I update my system intend to get a set-up that can playback the high resolution layer of them so it is not that I have taken sides it is just that for me I believe SACD should have been the way to go. If either or had taken off though I would have happily supported any direction just as long as we were being provided high quality sound with an excellent multi channel experience. It's a pity the format war probably did more damage than good as always.

Unfortunately we are now seeing the same thing in the video sector again with HD-DVD & Blu-Ray so it looks like the big corporations will never learn!

In defense of Chris though I do see how the Blu-Ray strategy could have been implemented successfully if handled correctly. With a new format coming to market I'm sure a marketing push could easily have put across the idea of both Blu-Ray Audio discs and Blu-Ray Video discs, all compatible with every Blu-Ray player available on the market. I think if the format is to take off and this sort of strategy had been put in place then there could have been a good chance multi channel music could have been back in the mainstream. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case and with the Blu-Ray format and players not even finalised yet it seems like this kind of set-up would have been cocked up anyway! @:

 

[solaris]

I live in a city of about a million people, there is a older 6 story building being renovated. It runs half the block. the scafolding is covered by an iPod add 6 stories high, half a block long. Now whats this about SACD or DVD-Audio being given a good shot. NO REALLY just show me the advertising and I will shut up.

 

[neil wilkes]

I personally prefer the overall idea of SACD over DVD-A. The way the format can hold both a high resolution stereo and multichannel layer along with the fact that a hybrid disc is backward compatible for normal CD playback and can be ripped to a PC for use in your MP3 player etc makes it the ideal format that should have replaced the CD.

So what? On a DVD-A, I can have a disc in Surround, playable on every DVD player. I can also add multichannel WMA in the ROM section. If I want CD, then I can create a CD as well & do the CD/DVD pack - which is still far cheaper than replicating SACD through Sony DADC. Believe me - I know.

I have a few DVD-A discs and when I update my system intend to get a set-up that can playback the high resolution layer of them so it is not that I have taken sides it is just that for me I believe SACD should have been the way to go. If either or had taken off though I would have happily supported any direction just as long as we were being provided high quality sound with an excellent multi channel experience. It's a pity the format war probably did more damage than good as always.

Unfortunately we are now seeing the same thing in the video sector again with HD-DVD & Blu-Ray so it looks like the big corporations will never learn!

The big companies don't need to learn, as there will always be those who will just consume what they are given without argument.
SACD should have been left as an archival medium only, and it's introduction was deliberately designed to blow the whole thing. Sony's strategy there was a deliberate split of what would always be a minority market, with the attitude "If we cannot own the ball, there is not going to be a game".

In defense of Chris though I do see how the Blu-Ray strategy could have been implemented successfully if handled correctly. With a new format coming to market I'm sure a marketing push could easily have put across the idea of both Blu-Ray Audio discs and Blu-Ray Video discs, all compatible with every Blu-Ray player available on the market. I think if the format is to take off and this sort of strategy had been put in place then there could have been a good chance multi channel music could have been back in the mainstream. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case and with the Blu-Ray format and players not even finalised yet it seems like this kind of set-up would have been cocked up anyway! @:

Again, why should all of us content creators have to be "grateful" to Sony for yet another closed shop?
You cannot replicate through anyone except Sony DADC.
You cannot create content for release (replication) except through Sony DADC. They will reject your masters.
You must pay - up front - £20,000 per title just for the licenses.

Blu Ray & HD DVD are about VIDEO. What is it that is so hard for people to understand? There is simply no way that Audio is ever going to get any kind of mainstream releases with decent publicity, because the discs that are coming out now are going to fail, the labels will use this as an excuse to drop support - except for video - and that will be that.

BYW - I see that Warners are now a TV station.
http://www.joost.com/presents/warner-bros-records/
The industry priorities are for downloaders, and bloody I-pods.
They do not want you, the end user, to have studio quality audio to keep. Otherwise how can they keep flogging the back catalogue every 5 years? God forbid they actually go out & start looking for genuine, sustainable talent again.

 

[Chris Gerhard]

I find it funny how so many people here know what Warner and Sony and the others did wrong. I don't have the answer as to what went wrong, I do know some things based on my personal experience. Nobody in real life I know gives a hoot about SACD/DVD-A. I have discussed both of these formats with dozens and dozens of friends and family members and I have always been the one to start the discussion and it never lasts long and nobody cares. Some may think it sounds good or different but nobody has ever run out and bought either.

My personal opinion is simple, SACD offers the security needed for the music companies and the audio quality needed for the audio enthusiast. I am certain the added expense for SACD and universal use of CD means it couldn't replace CD, just be a small supplementary market. It is clear SACD didn't make it as anything more than a niche product and that is where it will remain but I wish it could have been different. SACD and DVD-A aren't going to be able to change their course. Pretty silly comment that SACD killed the surround boom of 2000. I thought I had read here the company that released most of the early DVD-A titles, 5.1 Entertainment Group, killed that format. I guess Sony and SACD killed a corpse.

I know the issues with the launch of Blu-ray, incomplete specifications, high price, redundant formats, and so on. None of that matters to me, I like to look at things long term. Those are short term stumbles. I believe there is a market for an HD disc format. I personally own both formats and Blu-ray delivers great quality in video and audio. DVD is in about 95% of homes in the US, and it isn't going anywhere, the revolution from VHS to DVD is obvious. The evolution from DVD to HD disc isn't going to kill DVD as the preferred home video format for rentals and ownership, it is just the same thing with better audio and video and can't deliver the knockout blow to such an established product. Not every successful product has to have an enormous market. I am just guessing, but I believe with HDTV in 30% of homes already, an HD disc format could be in 25% of homes within 3 years. With the two redundant formats, I would guess 5% will have one or the other and we have another couple of niche formats like SACD/DVD-A. Confusion and reluctance to get involved is the natural response to having a format war like this one.

All I can say is I hope you guys are wrong and there is a chance that Blu-ray can first succeed as a video format then as an audio format. Despite Neil's bold proclamations that Blu-ray is only a video format and will never be anything else, I can say with certainty it beats DVD-A in flexibility, quality, capacity, and security. I don't even know the odds are good that either next generation format will find a market and be a success and I know I don't even want an attempt at high resolution surround on either format unless only one format exists.

Discussion about changing the course for DVD-A is a waste of time in my opinion, the decision has been made, it won't happen. The future for Blu-ray isn't known yet.

Chris

 

[timbre4]

It's one thing to make the product, it's another to PROMOTE it properly. Jon's comment about the Acura installed DVD-A base and NO followup? That's nonsense, but indicative of one ball dropped after another. The labels couldn't coordinate cars in aparking lot much less give new formats their due. Askk almost any clerk in any store and get blank stares; where's the training?

Decent shot? That's too sad to be funny.

Solaris is right! Where is the advertising? Other than Panasonic's great DVD-A ads in Automotive News with Elliot Scheiner ELS, Jerry Harrison, etc. there's been barely a trickle.

Sony is baloney; they issue single layer stereo, issue MC single layer, finally issue hybrid discs, then kill it, then provide lip service to DualDisc w/o MC, then revive SACD long enough to pop a handful of releases, then drop it again, couple years later annouce SACD head units... WTF?

Does that even remotely sound like well planned development and format support from an industry leader? What a high level embarrassment all around.

 

[timbre4]

Felix - What has happened to Rhino? They used to be hip and innovative. WEA recognized that Rhino would do a better job mining their vaults than they ever could. Lately they are just putting classic CDs into cardboard jackets at Warner's request.

Unless we have somebody with clout like the Doors organization or Jerry Harrison (Talking Heads), David Crosby or Jackson Browne, is it impossible to get other releases scheduled on DVD-A anymore?

BecauseSoundMatters.com seems like the antidote, but is not promising until they actually fess up to doing anything with DVD-A.

 

[Chris Gerhard]

It's one thing to make the product, it's another to PROMOTE it properly. Jon's comment about the Acura installed DVD-A base and NO followup? That's nonsense, but indicative of one ball dropped after another. The labels couldn't coordinate cars in aparking lot much less give new formats their due. Askk almost any clerk in any store and get blank stares; where's the training?

Decent shot? That's too sad to be funny.

Solaris is right! Where is the advertising? Other than Panasonic's great DVD-A ads in Automotive News with Elliot Scheiner ELS, Jerry Harrison, etc. there's been barely a trickle.

Sony is baloney; they issue single layer stereo, issue MC single layer, finally issue hybrid discs, then kill it, then provide lip service to DualDisc w/o MC, then revive SACD long enough to pop a handful of releases, then drop it again, couple years later annouce SACD head units... WTF?

Does that even remotely sound like well planned development and format support from an industry leader? What a high level embarrassment all around.

None of that matters to me. All I care about is a quality product, I pay no attention to marketing. Very good quality SACD and DVD-A releases were available to purchase and I did just that. Any consumer that cared could have done the same. They just didn't care and no amount of promotion changes that. The suggestions for how the formats could have succeeded by the knowlegable here, would have gotten the same result, apathy and confusion.

Blu-ray can have 7.1 lossless audio at 96kHz/24-Bit with simultaneous 1080p HDTV, that blows the older formats out of the water so I no longer think they should be promoted. Older 5.1 mixes can be at 192kHz/24-Bit with 1080p HDTV video. All we need now is for HD DVD to die and a unified effort to release quality concerts and albums on Blu-ray and give the consumer a chance without confusion associated with redundant formats and see what happens. I can't see any reason a market large enough to succeed isn't possible. It won't be the market CD or DVD enjoyed, basically 100% and 95% of homes in the US respectively, that just isn't going to happen and attempts to make it so will be a failure. It can and should be better than the 1% of homes or so that DVD-A and SACD interested.

Panasonic just announced a $599 MSRP Blu-ray player that can decode Dolby TrueHD internally. I am waiting to see if it can decode it and send 5.1 PCM over HDMI 1.3 for all of the possibilities that will open up. You guys need to read about the possibilities of these new formats before just writing them off. Here is a link to the Panasonic announcement, it is a largely lacking translation, I can't tell much and I can't even guarantee the translation is correct:

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/05/15/panasonic-launches-600-dmp-bd10a-blu-ray-player-bundles-five-f/

Chris

 

[JonUrban]

I find it funny how so many people here know what Warner and Sony and the others did wrong..... Pretty silly comment that SACD killed the surround boom of 2000. I thought I had read here the company that released most of the early DVD-A titles, 5.1 Entertainment Group, killed that format. I guess Sony and SACD killed a corpse.

Chris

You are indeed amazing...................

 

[atrocity]

I personally prefer the overall idea of SACD over DVD-A. The way the format can hold both a high resolution stereo and multichannel layer along with the fact that a hybrid disc is backward compatible for normal CD playback and can be ripped to a PC for use in your MP3 player etc makes it the ideal format that should have replaced the CD.

And maybe could have if Sony had waited to put it on the market. My biggest complaint with Sony isn't that their product is proprietary or that it was a spoiler or their replication costs are too high or anything political or financial. My complaint is that they invented a product that could have been all things to all people...but chose instead to half-heartedly release a bunch of incompatible single-layer two-channel crap that almost no one cared about.

If Sony had made a major effort to switch to single-inventory hybrid discs at the earliest possible opportunity, we'd probably be saying "Oh, yeah, there was almost a format war a few years ago..." while enjoying our SACDs. Instead we've got almost nothing because they chose to unleash a "competing" product that managed to kill the "competition" without actually competing. On some really weird level it's sick genius.

 

[Old Quad Guy]

You're not going to get mass acceptance of the new HD formats until players come out that are less than $200 and play both formats. The average person can't afford it now. They also won't pay more than what regular DVD's cost now.

Don't forget they also need to buy an HDTV.