 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.250.222.186
I know people on this site get bent out of shape over DualDisc, but what is wrong with DVD Video standard carrying 24/96 audio? Personally, I think that the CD is destined for the bone heap. SACD has lost, and DVD, in some form will take us to the new standard, sans download. With the incredible popularity of home theater, the CD player is slowly disappearing. If the majority of people are using their DVD players to play CD's, then I think the industry is just going to backdoor DVD music to replace CD. The DualDisc is just the first shot. Technically, what is different about DVD-V standard to DVD-A standard. If you put a disc in your DVD Audio player and the music tracks are 24/96, who cares. Am I missing something here?
Johnny
Follow Ups:
Anyone can make a music DVD-V.
bring bac k dynamic range
the 96/24 version of this is a standard DVD-Video used for stereo music. And they are great.
But the industry doesn't care, because this doesn't solve their ripping and downloading and playing on the computer problems.
SACDs and DVD-As stopped those problems, one big reason why not many people were really interested. People like ripping, copying, and downloading.
And consumers don't much care about 96/24 because most of them think mp3 is more than good enough.
Personally, I think if there is a future to high resolution digital, it will be 96/24 stereo, downloaded from the Internet and burned to a regular DVD using a standard DVD burner (or played directly from hard drive). As posted below, Linn records has already started to sell such downloads. Unfortunately, they are being offered for sale at about twice the price of the original SACDs. Considering that the consumer has to download, author a DVD, then burn it, gets no packaging, etc., it should sell for less than the physical medium. When the price is right, there will be some customers.
< < Am I missing something here? > >
No. The people that were missing something were the idiots who dreamed up DVD-Audio in the first place. If they had left well enough alone and not mucked up the market place with DVD-Audio and SACD, there *might* have been a shift to the DVD-Video format for audio releases. You have to remember that there are two factors at play here:
a) What the public will actually pay for.
b) How much money can the software companies make.
In the case of DVD-Audio and SACD, the software companies never had a prayer of making any money because there never was a large enough installed base of players. It's about as much as a pipedream as selling pre-recorded reel-to-reel tapes.
The real driving force behind DVD-Audio and SACD was the fact that the patents on CD were expiring. Sony/Philips were making around $1,000,000,000 per year on CD royalties before the patents expired, and most of that was from software (not hardware). They didn't want to see that source of free money go away, so they invented SACD. The other hardware companies wanted to own the money stream, so they invented DVD-Audio. Both sides were hoping to replace CD altogether. Both sides were smoking crack cocaine.
On the other hand, DVD-Video has a large enough installed base of players that condition (b) could be satisfied. It also offered some advantages for the software companies, principally the fact that it is quite a bit harder (though not impossible) to duplicate a copy-protected DVD-Video disc than a CD.
There were two factors working against this shift. First is that for most people, there really isn't any compelling advantage for the extra capabilities of DVD-Video over CD. Most people don't really care about higher resolution or multi-channel music. Second is that it costs around $0.25 to mass-produce a CD (including the case and insert). It costs about twice as much to mass-produce a DVD. Since the buying public didn't really care about the extra features, they wouldn't pay more for a music DVD than a CD, therefore there wasn't any way for the software companies to make extra money by shifting to DVD-Video. By their calculations, they would lose more money from the added manufacturing costs than they would gain by reducing copying.
great summary :: and we wonder why formats fail.....
will 24/96 downloads be the answer? Will we eventually see every album and every single priced according to resolution from say $.99 to $1.99?
Excellent summary.
The parallels with the advent of hi-rez video (HD-DVD, blu-ray) are only too obvious. I've read that DVD sales peaked and started to decline, hence new hi-rez video formats were rolled out. What are the royalty issues associated with DVDs?
Nonetheless, I see benefit in watching movies at home in a higher resolution. I'll just wait until "universal" video players have the bugs worked out, and drop in price.
and sold over and over again, never have i seen a more concise analysis of the subject, BTW this is the reason why downloaded music will rule, no matter how bad it sounds. It gives the software companies tools to resell us the same crap over and over again.
dee
;-D
True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.Kurt Vonnegut
...been a matter of getting you to buy your music collection all over again. period. It is like shampoo...lather, rinse, repeat.....
How old will I be before I come of age for you?
< < It has ALWAYS been a matter of getting you to buy your music collection all over again. period. > >
The record companies discovered this trick when they introduced CD's. (Which, by the way, made them the fat, lazy failures they are now.) But for every other format transition (cylinder to 78, 78 to 45, 45 to LP, LP to cassette, et cetera) this wasn't the case.
< < It is like shampoo...lather, rinse, repeat.... > >
When I was hospitalized after my accident, it was 5 weeks before they could prop me up in a (waterproof) wheelchair and give me a shower. When I washed my hair it felt so great that I did it again. I actually followed the instructions! (The only time I've ever done so, at least with regards to shampoo.)
> > what is wrong with DVD Video standard carrying 24/96 audio? < <Nothing in particular, other than these things:
- DVD-V can only carry two channels of uncompressed PCM at 24/96
- multi-channel is not feasible on DVD-V unless lossy compression is used
- copy protection in DVD-V is not considered to be robust> > Personally, I think that the CD is destined for the bone heap. SACD has lost, and DVD, in some form will take us to the new standard, sans download. With the incredible popularity of home theater, the CD player is slowly disappearing. If the majority of people are using their DVD players to play CD's, then I think the industry is just going to backdoor DVD music to replace CD. < <
CD will eventually fall by the wayside, as will SACD; however, DVD as a mainstream music carrier has already been a market failure. The "industry" has been trying for seven years to get DVD ingrained as the physical medium of choice. These efforts have been unsuccessful. Many people have simplistically predicted the success of DVD-based music because of the ubiquity of home DVD players, but they have all been wrong.
Despite the proliferation of DVD players in the home, DVD is not universal, and as a music carrier it lacks portability and flexibility relative to CD. CD is slowly losing ground to downloads, but CD still outsells DVD-based music media by tremendous margins. Don't expect this to change, or you will be very disappointed.
< < - multi-channel is not feasible on DVD-V unless lossy compression is used > >
This is not accurate. Please refer to the post linked below.
Note that my post says that multi-channel without lossy compression on DVD-V is not "feasible." I recognize that it is POSSIBLE, but it simply isn't a realistic option.Unscrew your propeller beanie and put your marketing hat back on.
< < I recognize that it is POSSIBLE, but it simply isn't a realistic option > >
I'm not so sure that it is (or isn't) realistic. I suppose it depends on whether or not the existing hardware supports multi-channel PCM. And I honestly don't know that answer to that.
When DVD first came out, all of the players had only two (stereo) analog outputs. So clearly a multi-channel PCM disc wouldn't play more than the front two channels on a machine like that. DTS was added to the DVD-Video specification at the 11th hour, and when DTS discs first became popular there were very few surround-sound processors that could decode DTS. So for several years all DVD-Video players above the cheapest entry level models had built-in DTS decoding and 5.1 analog outputs. What I don't know is what would happen if you were to play a multi-channel PCM DVD-Video disc in a player like that. It might play all of the channels and it might not.
I never tried the experiment because the authoring software for DVD-Video was (is?) very costly and complex. (I have made some multi-channel DVD-Audio discs with Cirlinca's $35 package, and it is trivially easy.)
But whether or not the existing hardware supports multi-channel PCM is somewhat besides the point. The point is that if there really were a demand for high-resolution surround sound (which I doubt), it would have been a hell of a lot easier to do it with DVD-Video instead of making a complete new format (eg, DVD-Audio or SACD). They could have easily have made "multi-channel" DVD-Video players for more money than a normal "stereo" DVD-Video player, just like you can get a multi-channel receiver for more money than a stereo receiver.
I still maintain that the decision to attempt the introduction of a new format two years after the introduction of DVD-Video was a colossal mistake. A brief look at the history of music playback formats, noting what was successful and what wasn't successful (and why) would have saved a lot of people a lot of time and money...
None of what should have or could have been done matters anymore. The reason I say that multichannel uncompressed PCM isn't feasible or realistic is precisely because it WAS NOT promoted or supported from the inception of DVD-V. Instead, as you and I agree, the DVD Forum wasted several years coming up with a new, problematic variation that was riddled with compatibility issues, and allowed the market to completely get away from them. What this this means that the vast majority of DVD player owners don't have a player, processor, or receiver/linestage capable of effectively supporting anything but 2ch analog, or whatever can be pumped over a Toslink or S/PDIF connection. So even though multichannel uncompressed PCM is technically possible on DVD-V, the market simply isn't there, making it unfeasible and an unrealistic option. OK?
The OP was spinning a variation of the old "DVD-based media will take over just because everyone has a DVD player" chestnut that the fanboys and format cheerleaders have paraded past us so many times. There are myriad reasons why this was never going to happen. Again, most of this has nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with the market.
nt
No doubt about that. Wouldn't feel the "majority" listen to CDs on CDPs either, more likely on a boombox or personal player.
Not of all. Lots feel like that. The format war and special players were not necessary. Neil Young's "Live at Massey Hall - 1971" even includes a video besides the 24/96 audio. The deluxe set includes a CD too for those wanting that.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
