Why did SACD, DVD-A, and Blu-ray fail as music surround formats?

[DKA]

I agree that best sellers can attract consumers to the format. I recall a guy walking into my store saying, "I just got all these Rolling Stones SACD's and need something to play them on." We know that works.

That's a good example but, in the end, it didn't work well enough. Look where SACD ended up.

This is all fun conversation and all but, like I said, the industry as a whole as to f'ed up for us to consider whether surround can rise to prominence as a format, other the smaller ideas thrown around here. I actually like Jon's idea of selling the discs when someone buys that fancy car with the DVD-A player. It doesn't add a new demographic, but maximizes an existing base a bit more. If Jon's numbers are right (and, even though I think they're slightly inflated, I am very open to the idea that Jon knows a ton more about car-installed-surround than I ever will), that may be an enticing number to the people with the pursestrings, Who knows.

Music is currently targeted towards an audience who chooses to listen to it in stereo form to be played on a portable device over headphones. That is your starting point. The gap between that and 5.1 as a truly mainstream format is a pretty big one. The Gaga idea is an intriguing one in that something of that sort would, at least, test the curiosity of a demographic who wouldn't know King Crimson from Burger King.

Anyways......again, this is just fun conversation. The industry is pretty f*cked unless there's innovation in all sorts of places, not just on what this site focuses on.

 

[JonUrban]

With regards to sales of surround, the only true concrete example we have from the modern day surround (2000's) releases isn't a DVD-A or an SACD. It's the Quadio Chicago DVD. This is a surround only disc, totally sold on it's surround merits. It sold out, and the after market sales are far in excess of the retail price.

That should be the starting point for the surround music industry. A perfect test case that something that was already in their hands could be pressed up in limited numbers and sell out. They HAD to make something on that release.

Of course, they stumbled on a perfect title, a former SQ title that had no Q4 to convert, thus never available as discrete. Still, we gave them plenty of choices just as good, as well as signifying the demand for the other 8 Chicago titles, but they are still fighting the bean counters to get more Quadio out.

Still, Quadio withstanding, that one title proves that there IS a market out there, however small it may be. I would venture that it's in the same realm as Gold CDs and regular SACDs. You have to admit, that Chicago disc sold out pretty quickly - which also may indicate that not that many were made as well.

 

[DKA]

With regards to sales of surround, the only true concrete example we have from the modern day surround (2000's) releases isn't a DVD-A or an SACD. It's the Quadio Chicago DVD. This is a surround only disc, totally sold on it's surround merits. It sold out, and the after market sales are far in excess of the retail price.

I disagree, Jon.

While a fine-sounding disc that is, and while I agree that it met Rhino's sales expectations, I think a reproduction of an old quadraphonic disc is a not "the only true concrete example we have from the modern day surround." This was a release absolutely and completely targeted towards people 1) old enough to even remember quad, 2) old enough to remember what Chicago used to sound like. That is nowhere near the potential audience for surround. It is, in fact, a niche within a niche within a niche. Not all surround enthusiasts began as quad enthusiasts. My first surround experience was listening to NIN's "The Downward Spiral" on DPL on a friend's Bose system while in college. We can no more judge this as a surround release and we can judge anything that came accompanied by a separate stereo disc. I don't see what the presence of the stereo skews.

You're right, though. It met expectations, and I actually do think those releases, in small batches, would sell well to a targeted crowd.

Sorry, Jon. Love ya anyway.

 

[JonUrban]

I think you missed my point there, DKA. (Maybe not, and if you didn't, that's cool. I won't ban you! )

My point should have ended as "example we have from the modern day surround release".

It was released in the 2000s specifically as a surround product. The fact that is was an old title and only 4.0 does not disqualify it as a surround product. People bought it to listen to in surround. If it was a bunch of old pot heads who bought it, who cares? It sold, it was surround, and it cannot be rationalized that "people bought it because they thought it was a reissue and they had no idea there was a surround track on it", like many of the earlier CD/DVD-A, SACD releases of the decade (i.e. DSOTM SACD)

 

[Old Quad Guy]

Yeah, but DKA you do have this title nonetheless don't you?

 

[JonUrban]

DKA,

The other thing I was pointing to was SALES. We don't know if any SACD or DVD-A release "sold out", because most were returned and sent to the cut-out bins. That's what I meant in my original post. We KNOW the Chicago Quadio sold out, because the manufacturer told us. As for every other SACD and DVD-A release of the 2000's, yeah, they're out of print, but did they sell out? We'll never know.

That's why I said that particular disc was the only example we know about with regards to selling out. It had nothing to do with the vintage of the material.

 

[Old Quad Guy]

And it's also a good indicator and example of how to build an audience and how to sell music in the 21st century. No matter what now, there will always be niches within niches regardless of format stereo or surround, because that's how the market is because of how technology democratized everything. You have all age groups and demographics with different or similar tastes all wanting everything or just one thing. The record companies must now learn these lessons and understand the niche markets they need to sell to and put the efforts there and not all their "eggs in one basket." In fact, we really don't need the record companies anymore except for the material still stuck in the vaults, we can do our own music now and get it out there.

 

[0tto]

DKA, industry not just f*cked but continue to do so.
latest example - reprint by Warner on SACD the titles, previously issued as a DVDA.
if they re-issued this as DVDA again and let's say just 2-3% of owners of DVD players
worldwide will purchase it, sales would be thousand times more than if this SACDs will
buy all owners of SACD players even on condition everyone of them brought 2-3 copies of each disc.

Jon not you neither me or anyone else on this board known what print was.
if there was only couple of thousand, it not justify such release for mass production from point of label.
look at Genesis box-sets. when one cannot buy retail priced box-sets with SACD+ADVD,
so much glorified Rhino has flooded market by box-sets with CD+ADVD, demand for which seems like pretty weak.

and i'm pretty sure that artist can influence decision in which formats his work should be released.
look at Genesis, Elton John, Mark Knopfler, Pink Floyd, Rush.

 

[DKA]

Yeah, but DKA you do have this title nonetheless don't you?

Yes, but I'm a freak of nature. I don't know too many people born after CTA came out who love that album as much as I do.

Jon - Point taken.

 

[Quad Linda]

King Crimson is a red guy. Burger King is more brown. Don't eat Burger King if he's red. You'll get sick. See, I know the difference.

And there weren't enough guys running out to buy SACD players because of the Stones.


Linda
Quad Questioner

That's a good example but, in the end, it didn't work well enough. Look where SACD ended up.

This is all fun conversation and all but, like I said, the industry as a whole as to f'ed up for us to consider whether surround can rise to prominence as a format, other the smaller ideas thrown around here. I actually like Jon's idea of selling the discs when someone buys that fancy car with the DVD-A player. It doesn't add a new demographic, but maximizes an existing base a bit more. If Jon's numbers are right (and, even though I think they're slightly inflated, I am very open to the idea that Jon knows a ton more about car-installed-surround than I ever will), that may be an enticing number to the people with the pursestrings, Who knows.

Music is currently targeted towards an audience who chooses to listen to it in stereo form to be played on a portable device over headphones. That is your starting point. The gap between that and 5.1 as a truly mainstream format is a pretty big one. The Gaga idea is an intriguing one in that something of that sort would, at least, test the curiosity of a demographic who wouldn't know King Crimson from Burger King.

Anyways......again, this is just fun conversation. The industry is pretty f*cked unless there's innovation in all sorts of places, not just on what this site focuses on.

 

[mch007]

if they re-issued this as DVDA again and let's say just 2-3% of owners of DVD players

huh...I don't think 2-3% of DVD owner will purchase if it is released as DVD-A.
I think highly of DVD-A but SACD as format is much more popular than DVD-A. Just compare the number of titles released in SACD (including stereo) with number released in DVD-A. So I don't think it was a bad decision from their perspective.

 

[0tto]

mch007
really? i can recall commercials on TV/radio back in late 90th early 2000th in regards of SACD players and superiority of this format over
anything else. then again, how many titles have been lobbied by Sony, before they switched to development of blue-ray.
but i can't recall even single advertise in any form in regards of DVDA.
no need too much, just put on package the sticker which will say something about superiority of the sound, big choice of different formats
on one disc and that this will WILL PLAY ON ANY MODERN DVD/BLUE RAY, HOME THEATRE, AUTOMOTIVE DVD SYSTEM AND PC/MAC PUTER.
in this case probably percentage would be even greater. some people will buy just of curiosity.

have you lately purchased anything from amazon or same kind of retailers? if you did, please tell me how many times you have hard time
to figure out what they are selling

 

[atrocity]

Well, I know what you mean about Lady Gaga. I thought at first she was just another style without substance, no talent, famous for being famous and phony sensationalism to create fake controversy crowd. But she's got the talent, musical know how to be around a long time and I guarantee "Born This Way" will be around a long time, just as "Y.M.C.A." is a music standard. Yeah, the music is nothing new and she has relied too much on the "phony sensationalism to create fake controversy" to drum up sales thing, but she seems like a cool person who would be totally in our camp if we just laid out the facts to her.

She won me over with her "Saturday Night Live" appearance by simply daring to be imperfect. She did a song involving a bunch of demanding dancing and, instead of simply lip-syncing as so many others do these days in that situation, she was actually audibly out of breath. She wasn't *bad* by any stretch of the imagination, she was just genuine.

 

[JonUrban]

She was also really interesting to watch on David Letterman. She was very cool, almost like "Who IS this old guy here, and why's he acting so weird?"

 

[DKA]

She was also really interesting to watch on David Letterman. She was very cool, almost like "Who IS this old guy here, and why's he acting so weird?"

She started out as an NYU music student playing local bars just like any other musician. She had a marketing vision someone captured, and voila. She jumped to mid-period Madonna without going through the early steps. She's got a hell of a die-hard following that is not going away anytime soon, and walks the walk for the LGBT community like no other modern, mainstream artist. The only knock I have on her is that, for someone who really is trying to portray herself as someone of substance, it can come off as hollow or immature sometimes.

SPEC loves state-of-the-art modern pop production.