How DVD-A is going to Survive

[Matt]

The "hot buttons" that DVD-A and SACD producers have been trying to push are really not that hot at all.

I can see how someone might like a 5.1 surround mix of an album, but I don't give a ****. All I care about is advanced resolution stereo. That's it and, frankly, I don't see how my niche desire is going to fuel an entire market. It won't. And I don't really see how a 5.1 mix is going to sell the format(s) either. To the consumer, it seems, it would elicit a big "so?" (especially in light of the whole quadraphonic failure, which it evokes).

However, I believe the situation warrants a looking-at from another perspective. Look at it from the viewpoint of VHS vs. DVD video: while DVD video is a clear and very obvious jump in picture and sound quality over VHS (which DVD-A or SACD is not over CD), there are other general things which "push" the format.

Primarily what I am talking about, and what I believe is going to "sell" to consumers the DVD-A or SACD format on a large scale, are ***special features***

I absolutely *love* (as do my sisters and parents, who could really give a **** about sound quality or picture quality enhancements) watching a movie, then re-watching it with commentary from the director and actors. Or sometimes, it will be the producers and director, then a separate commentary with the actors.

On my Wiz. of Oz DVD, I love the behind-the-scenes production pictures, in very high, very viewable quality (to differentiate it from CD+G). There are "extra" music tracks, "Making Of" video features, etc.

The DVD-A format (and SACD, but I am positive that DVD-A will prevail...if it plays it's cards as prescribed above) has a tremendous potential to offer not only music but an entirely multi-faceted, enveloping experience.

Not only can my sister listen to her Usher record, but she can also watch the "Making Of" featurette, or listen to his commentary about writing the songs on the album or she can see pictures or video of behind-the-scenes stuff, all in addition to the 5.1 mix or advanced resolution stereo.

These days, even if there is a huge difference of price between a DVD and a VHS cassette, I will buy the DVD if it has interesting special features (like actor commentary, etc.) This is a huge consumer selling point...I live in a house full of 'em!

- Matt

 

[morphsci]

That is exactly the market that Sony is now going after. Hence, the reason for the combo DVD/SACD players. There is a huge amount of money being spent in HT right now and multi-channel audio fits right in there. IMO

 

[Beagle]

I think the only way DVD-A will survive is if they go door to door, replacing everyones exisitng DVD player with a DVD-A player and 5 sample discs. They they will have to make all new release and current CD's available in the DVD-A format.

Tall order but I'm sure someone will do it

 

[markl]

DVD-A is a great stealth technology that will be sneaking its way into the homes of people who are buying DVD Video players which people are doing en masse. SACD has a tougher row to hoe.

And as for no one caring about multi-channel, or seeing it as a "gimmick", they said the same thing about the intro of stereo sound. Multi-channel is the future.

markl

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl Multi-channel is the future

God, I hope not.

And they said the same thing about quad.

 

[morphsci]

I'm afraid, like it or not, multi-channel is already here. Hasn't anyone noticed all the HT gear creeping into not only massmarket, but "high-end" venues? I agree with Markl, the future is digital (though I am not sure I like it). As far as quad, it was before its time. Quad digital might have been a different story.

 

[markl]

Remember how crappy early stereo recordings sound? I'm thinking of early Beatles material where they completely separate different instruments in one or the other channel. It took them time to figure out how to mix stereo properly. It will take time for them to figure out multi-channel.

markl

 

[Matt]

...I still maintain that "multichannel mixes" are not going to be the hot **** they're being made out to be in the minds of consumers. What is going to reel consumers in (since they're such a big fuggin' group that will largely determine the success of a format) is stuff like their favorite artist giving commentary over the music, the producer doing the same (or any other interesting person involved), pictures sections, behind-the-scenes videos sections, music videos, etc. (the visual stuff they can play in their home player whereas audio stuff, such as commentary and the music itself could be played anywhere with a compatible player).

Those things are certainly the primary things (in front of DTS, ultra-hi rez picture, etc. things I don't particularly care about with movies...which is the same attitude the vast majority of consumers will have toward audio) that keep me buying DVD's.

- Matt

 

[morphsci]

When they learn to do music like they learned to do soundtracks (I'm sorry but it is cool as **** when the bullets whiz over your head and slam into your back wall!) and take advantage of the extra channels (just like with stereo) it will be all over for stereo just like it was for monophonic. Again I am not sure whether I necessarily like it but it seems pretty obvious to me.

BTW have you actually heard multichannel music recordings?

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Matt Primarily what I am talking about, and what I believe is going to "sell" to consumers the DVD-A or SACD format on a large scale, are ***special features***

Hahahaha, that was pretty funny...what? You were serious? You have got to be kidding me...those are worth watching maybe once...

 

[Matt]

...well, for instance, on a fair amount of the DVD's I own, I listen to the commentary more than once and I feel that the feature adds a tremendous amount of value to the product. My whole family feels the same way. "It adds value." They're all consumers, as am I.

- Matt

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

Originally posted by markl Remember how crappy early stereo recordings sound? I'm thinking of early Beatles material where they completely separate different instruments in one or the other channel. It took them time to figure out how to mix stereo properly. It will take time for them to figure out multi-channel. markl

Listen to "Kind Of Blue" or Belafonte "Live At Carnegie Hall". They had stereo and ambience nailed at the end of the 50's.

Today all they can do is screw things up. Go figure. And they want to add more channels???

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

Remember how crappy early stereo recordings sound? I'm thinking of early Beatles material where they completely separate different instruments in one or the other channel. It took them time to figure out how to mix stereo properly. It will take time for them to figure out multi-channel.

Don't forget that in the 50's, most stereo hardware was either portable record players or console hi-fi's. Separates were a rarity, owned only by an extremely small group of serious audiophile/hobbyists.

Since the physical separation between L and R speakers on these early stereo players was minimal, extreme separation in the L and R recording tracks made the stereo effect more noticable to the novice record buying public.

 

[arnett]

Quote:

Remember how crappy early stereo recordings sound? I'm thinking of early Beatles material where they completely separate different instruments in one or the other channel. It took them time to figure out how to mix stereo properly. It will take time for them to figure out multi-channel.

early mixing boards did not have pan conrtols on them.

i for one LOVE early beatles recordings. hey, a bad stereo mix beats a good mono mix any day.

Quote:

Listen to "Kind Of Blue" or Belafonte "Live At Carnegie Hall". They had stereo and ambience nailed at the end of the 50's.

don't get a live to tape recording mixed up with a multi-track recording. kind of blue was a 'live in the studio' recording direct to 3-track tape. and the modern disc was remixed. it would be interesting to hear the original mix.

the beatles used true multi-tracking techniques. the backing track was recorded in mono onto track 1, and tracks 2-4 were used for the vocal and guitar overdubs.

(BTW, the beatles didn't even use headphones for overdubs untill '66's revolver.

)

so it wasn't recessarily the time (i.e., 50s-60s). it was more the technique of the engineering.

 

[Beagle]

Digital gimmickry is slowly destroying music and film.

Like Roger Waters said "Give any species too much rope and they'll ****** it up". That's humans for ya.

There are far too many people in white lab coats fiddling and inventing and too few creating good music and good movies.