[rumor] Beatles, Pink Floyd, Queen on DVD-A
post-174152
Thread Starter
Post #1 of 22

kelly

Herr Babelfish der Übersetzer, he wore a whipped-cream-covered tutu for this title.
Joined
Jan 1, 2002
Messages
5,435
Reaction score
11
Joined
Jan 1, 2002
Posts
5,435
Likes
11
Ok, no basis at all to this one but I just got off the phone with a local record store and the guy there said Beatles, Pink Floyd and Queen are getting their catalogs released in DVD-A this fall.

Anyone know anything about this? I haven't gotten good at finding information on the new audio formats on the web yet.
 
     Share This Post       
post-174155
Post #2 of 22

RickG

Electrostatic Elvis
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
4,722
Reaction score
11
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Posts
4,722
Likes
11
I haven't heard anything about this Kelly...but, if it's true, what a bunch of dumb-ass's they are! My understanding is that the DVD-A format is in deep do do...

We'll just have to wait and see if this rumor comes to fruition.

Thanks for the info.

 
     Share This Post       
post-174158
Post #3 of 22

kelly

Herr Babelfish der Übersetzer, he wore a whipped-cream-covered tutu for this title.
Joined
Jan 1, 2002
Messages
5,435
Reaction score
11
Joined
Jan 1, 2002
Posts
5,435
Likes
11
RickG

What's the deep do-do they're in? (Besides SACD looking more promising at the moment.)
 
     Share This Post       
post-174161
Post #4 of 22

RickG

Electrostatic Elvis
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
4,722
Reaction score
11
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Posts
4,722
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally posted by kelly
RickG

What's the deep do-do they're in? (Besides SACD looking more promising at the moment.)


That's it Kelly. Maybe this is a last ditch effort to get a new foothold in the market.

Guess we'll find out.
 
     Share This Post       
post-174163
Post #5 of 22

arnett

Consigliere
Joined
Jun 27, 2001
Messages
711
Reaction score
10
Joined
Jun 27, 2001
Posts
711
Likes
10
I’m extremely skeptical that EMI will release the Beatles catalog in DVD-A. EMI doesn’t license out Beatles albums to any other company – so they’d be issuing the Beatles albums themselves.

There’s just no point for EMI to issue Beatles DVD-A’s. I don’t think they would be a big seller (comparatively speaking). And regular Beatles CDs sell just fine on their own.

Something tells me that if this were true we would have heard about it by now.


But I hope you're right, kelly.
 
     Share This Post       
post-174171
Post #7 of 22

arnett

Consigliere
Joined
Jun 27, 2001
Messages
711
Reaction score
10
Joined
Jun 27, 2001
Posts
711
Likes
10
rickG,

i think those are all DVD-videos.

It also says that Queen's Jubilee DVD is coming out. Anyone know if this is a DVD-V?
Or maybe it’s the recent commemorative celebration DVD for Queen Elizabeth II.
 
     Share This Post       
post-174187
Post #8 of 22

MacDEF

Headphone Hussy (will wear anything if it sounds good)
Joined
Jun 26, 2001
Messages
6,761
Reaction score
12
Joined
Jun 26, 2001
Posts
6,761
Likes
12
I gotta agree with arnett on this -- why would anyone be stupid enough to buy the Beatles on DVD-A (or SACD for that matter)? Early Beatles albums were mono, and even the newest don't have good enough sound quality to really benefit. It'd be like buying the CDs and throwing in an extra $5-$10 each as a tip
 
     Share This Post       
post-174188
Post #9 of 22

markl

Hangin' with the monkeys.
Member of the Trade: Lawton Audio
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Messages
9,130
Reaction score
39
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
9,130
Likes
39
Queen's Night at the Opera is already out on DVD-A. There are two versions; first one was blasted by the audio press for bad 5.1 sound (drums in rear channels, etc.), and the second one is supposed to be out now and is supposed to correct those problems. Not sure how you tell one version from the other, but for us headphone geeks it may not matter as we'll be listening to the stereo track anyway.

markl
 
     Share This Post       
post-174190
Post #10 of 22

royboy2k

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Messages
424
Reaction score
10
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
424
Likes
10
I agree with arnett. I think it was the recent Stereophile that said EMI was squarely in the SACD camp, and the Beatles are on EMI, so...
who knows
 
     Share This Post       
post-174191
Post #11 of 22

kelly

Herr Babelfish der Übersetzer, he wore a whipped-cream-covered tutu for this title.
Joined
Jan 1, 2002
Messages
5,435
Reaction score
11
Joined
Jan 1, 2002
Posts
5,435
Likes
11
Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF
I gotta agree with arnett on this -- why would anyone be stupid enough to buy the Beatles on DVD-A (or SACD for that matter)? Early Beatles albums were mono, and even the newest don't have good enough sound quality to really benefit. It'd be like buying the CDs and throwing in an extra $5-$10 each as a tip


Ummm?

*checking sarcasm meter*

You can't be serious? You believe that if the source material was a mono master that there is nothing to be gained from a higher resolution format than CD? So... every mono CD sounds just as good as the vinyl and for that matter just as good as the master tape?

Well, it's good to be disagreeing with MacDef again. The world has regained it proper order.
 
     Share This Post       
post-174195
Post #12 of 22

markl

Hangin' with the monkeys.
Member of the Trade: Lawton Audio
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Messages
9,130
Reaction score
39
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
9,130
Likes
39
The oldest hi-rez disc I have is a Billie Holiday SACD circa '58 and the sound is surprisingly good, much better than I was expecting given the age of the recording. This is a stereo release though, not mono.

I also have a 24/96 DAD of Coltrane's Blue Train (which irritatingly doesn't have the original release date but I believe it's late 50s). Sound here is also good.

Don't have the regular CD versions to compare, but I think that for die-hard fans, there is value in hi-rez versions of older material, but may be overkill for casual listeners. So I fall in the middle on this debate.

I can see jazz-heads and classical music lovers buying hi-rez versions of older material (the "masterpieces"), but not necessarily rock fans. To make an anolgy, for the die-hard fans its probably comparable to having a limited edition, full-size, silk-screened print of a Monet rather than a mass-produced cheaply printed small-size poster on crummy paper.

markl
 
     Share This Post       
post-174199
Post #13 of 22

kelly

Herr Babelfish der Übersetzer, he wore a whipped-cream-covered tutu for this title.
Joined
Jan 1, 2002
Messages
5,435
Reaction score
11
Joined
Jan 1, 2002
Posts
5,435
Likes
11
If you're a casual listener and you're reading this forum, find another hobby. You're lost.

*I* care about the quality of EVERY recording I own. If there's a way to get it better without it costing me more, why wouldn't I want it better?

And this whole BS thing about only audiophiles knowing the difference between good and bad is driving me nuts. I walked through a store with a friend who said, "Is there a live guitarist playing in here?" We both looked around and finally spotted an acoustic guitarist playing upstairs. How did my non-audiophile friend know it wasn't just a CD playing through a set of speakers? Because the difference isn't subtle! Everyone hears better quality--it's just that not everyone cares enough to wander these forums and pay $500 for a cable.

The average person wants the better quality that DVD-A or SACD could provide, they just don't want to have to be an obsessed geek to figure out how it works or what to read or what to buy or spend any more money on a CD than he or she already does. How do I know this? Because common ordinary people buy remastered CDs that "sound better" all the time! Or did you think that only people who owned ten pairs of headphones bought those?

And for those of you who don't know this, The Beatles, Queen and Pink Floyd actually ARE popular artists. Every time their catalogs are rereleased they sell in large quantities. Maybe YOU don't care about this because these recordings aren't good enough for YOU but when you guys actually try to dismiss things like this because you don't think it's important to the genral public, you demonstrate just how out of touch with reality audiophiles really are.
 
     Share This Post       
post-174206
Post #14 of 22

markl

Hangin' with the monkeys.
Member of the Trade: Lawton Audio
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Messages
9,130
Reaction score
39
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
9,130
Likes
39
"*I* care about the quality of EVERY recording I own. If there's a way to get it better without it costing me more, why wouldn't I want it better?"

But re-masters and hi-rez versions do cost more if you already own them.
Nevertheless, they get me for every single re-master of material I already own *for the artists I really care about*. At some point, you have to decide "do I want a new album I've never heard before for my collection, or do I really want to spend my $15 for a better version of something I already own?" I think this applies to die-hard audiophiles and lay-people
alike.

"And this whole BS thing about only audiophiles knowing the difference between good and bad is driving me nuts."

Who said that? Or are you referring to another thread?

"The average person wants the better quality that DVD-A or SACD could provide,"

Average guy doesn't know they exist.

"...they just don't want to have to be an obsessed geek to figure out how it works or what to read or what to buy or spend any more money on a CD than he or she already does. How do I know this? Because common ordinary people buy remastered CDs that "sound better" all the time!

I'm not sure I agree. I bet the decision to re-master has as much to do with being out of stock of the old crappy version and needing to issue another edition than it does with re-selling the same CD to the average "lay person".

"Or did you think that only people who owned ten pairs of headphones bought those?"

Die-hard fans of the artist and audiophiles are the only folks who would purchase the same disc twice. This is my belief anyway.

"Every time their catalogs are rereleased they sell in large quantities."

To the same people or to new ones?

"...you demonstrate just how out of touch with reality audiophiles really are."

Um, but Kelly, you *are* an "audiophile" (or do you consider that slander?
). Anyone with the gear, tweaks, and cables that you have and devotes as much time and energy to this audio-oriented forum is by *definition* an audiophile, yes?

If you are not an audiophile, who the heck is? And who are these "audiophiles" ("you guys") that you are trying to rail against?


markl
 
     Share This Post       
post-174223
Post #15 of 22

kelly

Herr Babelfish der Übersetzer, he wore a whipped-cream-covered tutu for this title.
Joined
Jan 1, 2002
Messages
5,435
Reaction score
11
Joined
Jan 1, 2002
Posts
5,435
Likes
11
Maybe I should start a thread to explain why I don't feel the term "audiophile" applies to me.

Meanwhile -- I didn't say the average consumer knew what SACD or DVD-A are. Maybe not yet, maybe not ever. What I do insist upon is that they know when something sounds better. I provided a clean enough example of that. And frankly, when average joe really *can't* hear a difference, it has a lot more to do with the difference being too subtle (ie: not better enough) than it has to do with them not being audiophile enough.

To answer your other point: If quality did not matter to the consumers then the best solution would be to not spend any more money making new remasters and simply put them out again as reissues. The fact is that enough people DO care to make it profitable to do so. Businesses are not run on the emotional whims of audiophiles. They are run to make money.

I do not know the statistics of how many people who own older versions of albums rebuy them versus who are new customers. I don't know that it's relevant. If large numbers of Beatles CDs sell, they sell. If large numbers of SACDs sell, they sell -- and it makes the risk more worth it for other companies. It benefits me directly to see the stuff sale even when I don't buy it.

For me personally... I bought a couple of Pink Floyd CDs (Wish You Were Here and The Wall) prior to the first remastered version being released in the form of a box set. I bought the box set so there was some duplication there. I didn't buy the new version because my understanding was they were the same remasters. I have The Beatles - The Beatles (affectionately known as the white album). I DON'T have Magical Mystery Tour, even -- one of the greatest headphone albums of all time. I don't have Help or even Sgt. Peppers. I'd say *my* Beatles library is lacking. Why? I have limited income -- I bought other CDs, like those Pink Floyd CDs and why? Partially because they were remastered. Following me so far? Queen is one of my favorite bands and I own not one single CD of theirs. Why? The original releases on CD were VERY poor and the remasters had these god awful remixes slapped onto the end. I listen to whole albums and don't want to have to stop the CD before that last track comes on and leaves an aftertaste like Diet Pibb, so I passed on those too. Really if they'd just done a basic remastering, I'd have bought them. If they come out on SACD with the original track content, you can bet I'll be buying them.

But of course - the reason I started this thread isn't because they're coming to SACD, it's because they're supposedly coming to DVD-A -- a format I don't own and now have a vested interest in seeing NOT succeed. How bizarre is that for me to actually be on the side *against* a high resolution format coming out? Still, that's how it works. I want SACD to win--partially because it's (potentially at least) dual layer and partially because I actually already own the hardware.

And for that matter, how bizarre is it for me to be in a forum trying to convince Markl that the format has validity for the masses?? I thought you were the format champion, not me.

Let me ramble even more here. Back in 1990, I worked in a movie theater (fun job, I talk about it a lot). Back then our theater had six screens. Three were mono. One was stereo. One was Dolby. One was THX. Do you know we had average ordinary joes ask for their money back if we mislisted something as being in THX by mistake? Better yet, how many people do you know today who DON'T think that THX means something about quality and surround sound? Don't any of your NON audiophile NON geek friends notice when something is "in digital"? Mine do. They don't understand the technical details of it, of course -- and I have to explain to them why THX is a worthless standard in home video. I have to explain that DTS on DVD sounds better and why. I have to explain why I prefer to go to SDDS theaters and why even those don't have the same system in every theater. I know this stuff because I'm a little obsessive and geeky about it--but they're not. And they likely glaze over a bit when I try to explain it all. But despite being totally disinterested in the details, they STILL want the one that sounds better. They STILL say comments to me, completely unprovoked, like "I like the way suchnsuch theater sounds better than suchnsuch." They have favorite movie theaters based on how they sound even.

And you tell me average joe "doesn't get it"? "Doesn't want better quality?" ********. Average joe knows live from Memorex.
 
     Share This Post       

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top