DVD-Audio Sales Five Times that of SACD Says RIAA Survey

"Just No Way"

Although I am a strong proponent of each format, there is no way that I could ever believe that DVD-A's have outsold SACDs. Just no way.[/QUOTE]

>>>>>>Really? And why wouldnt you? Do you realize that there are WAY more than 5 times as many DVD players than there are SACD players in the homes of the public? Try like 500 X more. If you aint got a SACD player, you cant play a SACD, simple as that. Hybrids? Well if youre playing the Redbook layer and you dont have a SACD player what does the term SACD have to do with your purchase? If they are even counting those people, thats a sham.

I mean, come on.....the survey indicates that DVD-As have outsold SACDs 5 to 1 and youre saying its all a lie, that they havent outsold them at all? Thats just being oblivious to reality.

Let me finish this with this statement. I am NOT saying one format is better than the other, they are both great in my book. but lets look at reality. Most people today have a DVD player because the big video chains (and many of the little ones) have stopped stocking VHS tapes. Most people today dont own an SACD player. most people today dont KNOw what an SACD player is. I do, and you do, and audiophiles do. But audiophiles are less than 1% of the buying public. You cant sell the media if people dont have the player!!!!!!

This all reminds me of something Charles Tandy of Radio Shack fame once said at a college speaking engagement: Someone asked him why there were no Ham Radios in the Radio Shack Catalog, but there were 10 different CB Radios.

His response was " Well, there are half a million Ham Radio operators in the Us today". Thats a lot, right? Well, yes, but there are over TWENTY MILLION Cd radio operators.....so the market potential is where? THATS why we stock 10 different CB Radios"

Food for thought.

 

Geez, Mikey, calm down! I said I couldn't believe the survey, I didn't say it was a lie!

I LOVE DVD-A

I HAVE MORE DVD-A's than SA-CDs

I would buy the DVD-A of a title over the SACD if they were both there and I could only buy one.

You are preaching to the choir. I LOVE DVD-A.

I just don't believe the survey. Me, no one else. BTW, there are also a lot of other things that I don't believe!

Good grief folks, we are making WAY TOO MUCH of a deal over this stupid survey.

 

I was waiting for someone to say this. I totally agree with your opinion. I believe hi-rez has more of a chance of becoming popular through DVD-Audio for the reasons you point out. Once users become aware of what they are missing, something that will never happen by listening to the redbook layer of a hybrid SACD (other advantages of that layer notwithstanding), they'll go for an "universal" player and will be introduced to SACD. Then, their ears will lead them along.

BTW, as far as I know, Dolby Digital and DTS have better quality than a redbook CD so they are a closer step to hi-rez than your normal redbook CD, usually over compressed, layer.

Again, I totally agree with you. Let's face it, we are in the minority, but a large move of the market towards hi-rez will also be a fortunate thing for us as the record companies will be more inclined to invest money in "obscure" (to the general public) recordings if they believe at least there is a larger potential market out there.

Also, if push comes to shove, a little hype won't harm anyone. Yet, it could attract the attention of current and would-be retailers so that they do their homework as far as hi-rez is concerned. And, THAT, would surely help sales.

 

Well Mikey for one only 400K DVDAs were shipped to retailers according to the RIAA?

Do these DVDA discs reproduce like rabbits?

Why must we always drag in "most people"? Who cares what they do. Most people don't know who Steve Hoffman is. Think of all the great music they are missing...

It has and will hurt the credibility of the DVDA Council and that may take away from DVDAs chances from wider adoption. It would be much better to be honest. They could have talked about great titles coming out and the fast growth (on a small base) they have enjoyed....

 

Let's be real Lee. The general public has no clue who actually is the DVD-A Council, nor would they go deeper into releases put out by the council. This latest release, regardless of the actual validity of the contents within, does nothing but help DVD-A, especially when selling their wares to retailers (mainly new retailers I would say) as a product that is moving or gaining some sort of growth. At the very least, such releases may convince current DVD-A retailers to continue on with their Hi-res sections, or even expand them in some way due to increased demand. Seeing that the RIAA was behind the study further increases the impact.

J

 

Oblio....I AM calm. )

As I said, I love both formats, the same way I love 45s AND LPs. they have different uses to me.

Personally, I think both Hi Res formats will make it...but I think that SACD will migrate to a audiophile niche..... for high fidelty STEREO rleases, for classic Lps, Jazz, Orchestral, etc, while I think DVD-A will be combined with DVD into one format for 5.1 releases. There is room for both. And you know what else?? I could see The Beatles getting released in BOTH formats.


Lighten up, friends!! ) Mikey likes you!!

 

Lee....if you want to talk about reproducing like Rabbits, tell me how in the world a guy buys an ABKCO Stones Cd, he doesnt know anything about SACD, he doesnt have a SACD player, the disk doesnt even SAY SACD, yet the sale counts as "Another SACD Sold"???

Whose kidding who here?

 

This is kind of off topic, but I will say it anyway. Last year, more new vinyl was sold than DVD Audio and SACD combined. I think that says something.

 

Nino, you're right it does say something, and it aint good.

 

What makes you say that? The fidelity of a good vinyl record is far superior to any digital format, and it is familiar to most people. I am an analog person. I would never buy any hi rez digital. When I listen to music, I want it all, not 96k or 196k samples per second of it, and I dont want my music to have to go through all kinds of processing on playback, like it does on a DVD or SACD disc.

 

Unfortunately 'better' technology, and I am using it in the general sense, does not a good potential market make. Sony's protectionism not withstanding, Beta was far better than VHS, but VHS became more popular and Beta has all but ended up on the same list as the dinosaurs.

I think that the general trend in everything technological is to offer something to everybody (or at least to as many as possible). This is why you have cell phones that take pictures and play games; cars with DVD screens, GPS and 5.1 music systems; 'universal' players, A/V amps with turntable connections, hybrid SACD with a redbook layer and DVD-Audio with Dolby and/or DTS tracks that can play on a regular DVD.

Sometimes discussions such as the one on this thread, while generally entertaining and sometimes enlightening, remind me of the old story of the elephant that was being described by a bunch of blind guys. At moments the elephant might be music and its different playback formats on the market. At others, as on this thread, the elephant is the industry (or the market). Each of us is describing it from our own limited point of view. We are all right to some extent, but the 'true' elephant we are all intent in describing somehow is an entirely different animal. This is why I believe that a slightly more 'impersonal', general look at the matter can probably render us a better glimpse at the whole creature.

I believe the RIAA is more interested in the whole animal. Although I imagine they are also interested in seeing its two front legs (SACD and DVD-Audio perhaps?) move forward to make sure the elephant has a place to go.

The current trend towards offering many options is, generally speaking, a good one. But it can be confusing: to the layman and, curiously enough, it also seems to be confusing us, the ones who are more interested and informed.

McLuhan, the great communications theorist, said that communication is the activity of the listener. If the listener does not understand, or is not willing to listen, there is no communication. That is why we cannot critique certain types of seemingly 'simple', 'incomplete' or 'imprecise' communication that is being targeted at the general public. The industry, and we, for our own interest, want the general public to 'listen' and 'understand', but don't make them deal with Megahertz, bits, resolution, etc. At least not for now. Just make sure they listen, the rest, as they say, should follow...

Sorry guys for this long post.

 

Vinyl has signal processing (RIAA curve, applied twice) and compromises (inner groove distortion, bass equalization to keep the needle in the groove, reduced dynamic range, reduced stereo separation) as well. You might want to stick with reel-to-reel if you reject all digital and want to get closer to the master tape).

 

I understand this, but with the processing involved in recording and playing back digital audio, there is more places to lose data than there are with simple RIAA bass and treble EQ. All formats, whether it be digital or analog, have compromises. Its up to you what you want to give up.

Also, reel to reel tape has lots of EQ also. On consumer decks, the IEC equalization curve, and on pro decks, the NAB equalization curve. I use mostly reel to reel in my recording studio.

 

*bangs head on table*

In digital, you are not getting "96k samples a second" of audio. You are getting a continuous soundwave, just as continuous as with analogue. The difference is the source. In analogue, the wave is generated by a stylus scraping across a fairly-discontinuous piece of plastic. In digital, this wave is produced by the DA conversion of a hilarious amount of samples.

 

Both Dolby Digital and DTS are "lossy" encodeing systems whereas redbook CD is a "lossless" storage format. What this means is that Dolby digital AND DTS loses information in a decoding process that converts CD quality sound to a smaller file. The exact numbers are that the dolby digital encoding process compresses the PCM file down to 384,000 bits per second for ALL SIX CHANNELS COMBINED. A CD has a datastream of 1,411,200 bits per second FOR JUST 2 CHANNELS. As you can tell by those numbers, dolby digital is compressed to the max, but CD quality sound is not compressed in the same way. When you listen to a CD you are listening to a much higher resolution sound quality than a DVD encoded by dolby digital. The resolution of a CD is in the order of 20 times that of dolby digital, and boy can your ears hear it,

 

All I know is, I hear greater fidelity on many of my music DVDs (Queen (DTS), Billy Joel (DD), Eagles (DTS), John Lennon (DTS) than most of my music CDs, whatever the numbers involved may be.

 

Right on the spot! All specifications and numbers put aside, my ears tell me that the best DD/DTS-recordings on DVD out there are superiour to the corresponding CDs, when applicable.

 

Isn't it true that redbook CD is 44.1/16 and DVD-Video is usually 48/20 or 48/16?

If you have a source that was recorded at, say, 96/24 o 48/24, once you down sample it to 44.1/16, can't one consider it to be "lossy"?

I agree with Joel and Uffe. When I listen to Dolby Digital and, especially, to DTS it sounds better to me than a redbook CD.

 

Michael and Micky this has been one ridiculous thread. And Michael started the same thing over at HTF. Maybe he will answer my second post to this thread (waaay back on the first page). Here it is again....

Michael, you are right about us not being representative of the general public.

But like you pointed out, many of the DVD-A sales are from buyers who are in no way thinking of the DVD-A hi-rez tracks. So even though they intentionally bought the DVD-A disk, I see that as almost identical to those who buy the hybrid SACD and only listen to the redbook.

So all of this stuff about there are move DVD players than SACD players (from mickey) and then coming to the conclusion DVD-A is selling more than SACD (not counting bybrids which MOST hi-rez enthusiast ARE indeed buying) seems to be a huge smoke screen. How many DVD players are DVD-A compatable (not that many more than DVD players are SACD compatiable)? And out of those that are how many even KNOW what to do with the 6 channel audio output? (again, the answer is enthusiasts like US are the few that understand the thing)

So glossing over the simple FACT that hybrid SACD cannot be counted (because you point out they are bought for the redbook layer by MOST folks) but you WANT to count DVD-A's, (which the DVD-A track IS NOT played by most but lets count THAT) really fails in logic 101.

Heck we have a better survey going right here and it appears almost overwhelmingly to favor MORE SACD's. And no, I did not wade through the 6 pages to count.

 

Getting back to the survey, the Peter Hart results dispute this and that is another reason why this survey is BS.

Mikey, if you look at my posts you will see that I talk about the problems with counting hybrids (ie. we don't know whether they were bought for the redbook or SACD layer). So we are on the same page there. But the point remains that the survey suggests an amount of DVDAs sold that is entirely unsupportable.

This is true. We are serious music fans at SH TV here by and large and the choice is generally Super Audio. We should embrace both formats since they are a big improvement over 16/44, but I think many of us do get more involved with Super Audio. Maybe that's partly technology driven from better playback devices, better mastering, or maybe it is a more involving format which is my suspicion. I like DVDA too and have about a dozen DVDA discs but I find more of my music in SACD and generally a better quality level.

I would accept DVDA if we had one unifying format and even more well-done titles, though.

 

This may be true Charles, but they are buying the DVD-A for something other than the redbook layer. In my opinion this is why the music industry put out these two new formats in the first place, in an attempt to get away from redbook CD for new streams of royalty income as well as stemming piracy. Whether is was bought for the DTS or DD track is meaningless, as the manufacturers goal of weaning the public off of pirateable redbook was accomplished.

Why do you think Sony insisted on Single layer discs for so long, and for the most part still do? I don't want to hear any lines about giving all Hybrid capacity to smaller labels. They are Sony, they can do what they want, they own their own pressing lines. They didn't mind other labels putting out discs which could be copied, but when it came to their properties, they wanted to hold them tight. From my standpoint it looks like they sunk a large amount of money into SA-CD and were hoping the single layer discs would take off in some way. After a few years they saw that was not happening, so they had to slightly switch their strategy on a couple dozen larger releases to attempt to salvage a bad situation, and give them some sort of test run as to the profitability of hybrids for their own releases. Apparently it was not ultra successful or profitable, as they have not put out anymore Hybrids in recent months or much on SA-CD for that matter. Sony has actually put out more Dual-Disc releases in this calender year than SA-CD discs!!! What gives?

Speaking of Warner/DVD-A Council, the same goes with their attempt to get Dual-Disc off the ground. If DVD-A was selling so well (like this survey suggests, they would not even touch the Dual-Disc as it once again gives consumers access to a copyable redbook layer.

Two struggling formats which may soon be extinct with the majors who own a lot of the good music out there. What a shame.

J

 

I've answered this before.

CD sales are stagnating. SACD and DVD-A is an attempt to engage a paradigm shift where consumers adopt a new format (or formats) to listen to music. This is especially enticing to the record labels because of declining CD sales.

If you buy a DVD-A, even to listen to the lossy tracks, you are buying music that is not a CD. If you buy a single-inventory SACD for the redbook layer alone, no shift is occurring.

That is the difference, and it is significant.

Even if DTS/DD is lossy, these discs include high-res tracks that are of interest to us quality-minded folks. MP3/AAC/WMA downloads from iTunes/Napster/whatever do not have such a benefit.

Do I think that either high-res format will ever achieve mainstream success? Not particularly. Do I think that DVD-A has the best chance of getting consumers to listen to something that they bought knowing it was not a CD? Yes, absolutely.

 

I presume you are referring to the mass market level in the above statement?

 

Well, how exactly does a DVD-A sold to someone who doesn't even know what MLP is and doesn't even have a player capable of playing back the MLP material (or doesn't even have a 'surround sound' setup for that matter) count as just another DVD-A sold? So what if they can play it on any DVD player? A hybrid SACD can be played on any CD player (which still outnumber DVD players by a HUGE number) or DVD player; can a DVD-A? No. Every 'DVD' player is a CD player for that matter.

Let's stop playing favourites here, because you can't have it both ways. You cannot say that a SACD sold to someone for the Redbook layer doesn't count as a sale for SACD and then in the same breath say that a DVD-A sold to someone for DVD-V material should be counted as a DVD-A sale. Biased much? And, I'm sorry, but 'knowing it isn't a CD' doesn't count. You might as well just axe SACD and DVD-A entirely then and just sell DVD's to people who, 'know it's not a CD'.