Which format will win?

Great conversation, some real thoughtful comments.

I strongly agree that content comes from the artist/creator. I don't mind paying for that artistry/creativity. I object to paying a premium to the middleman, i.e., the record company.
At one time they were important.
In this digital age of the internet, I beg to say they are not.

That is why I object to their efforts to strangle creativity. I do not download music, because I'm not sure how, and I don't know how to get it from there to my cd burner (which only loads dust for lack of this old geezer's knowledge base :( ).

In the 1960s and 1970s there were local/regional bands/musicians that were as good, if not far better, than the national/international groups. They were eventually 'strangled' by the control the recording companies had over the industry.
Today 'indie' groups and musicians have the technical means to get their sound out to as many people as visit a website.

THAT is what cranks the 'music industry.' Their control is tenuous, and they are bringing their big guns to a knife fight. And, how in the hell are they winning? Our courts are just not up to the speed of technology, and the obsolescense of certain industries.

Rock on, dudes and ladies,
pete
 
DVD-A v SACD

In a July HiFi News &RR - an article about Matshushita's seminar in Europe mentions a question to the panel about the future of DVD-A..."Panasonic staff later admitted informally that Universal's decision to back SACD instead of DVD-A was a setback, but the company could not compete with the financial incentives offered by Philips and Sony."

Sign of more to come?

cheers
Jack
 
:grnbounce Hey All:beer:

Good thread with lots of thought provoking content. Guess I'll add my two cents worth.

I think that with technology expanding exponentially, it's very possible that the "next big thing" is ight around the corner and may make current music reproduction (and perhaps ALL electronics) obsolete.

As to piracy, well, I think this issue is just a response to the greed of the recording industry. Ever since the advent of home recording, whether reel to reel or cassette, prople have been "pirating" music. I recall radio stations doing simulcast concerts and broadcasting level signals so people could get good tapes. I also don't recall anyone ever being sued for this practice.

Now, I believe that the ARTISTS who create the music that drives our hobby, should get fair recompense for their work, and the companies that produce the media we listen to it through should get a share for their part. But to me it seems like their share keeps getting bigger, yet it's still not enough for them. Let's face it, not everyone has a computer and many who DO, have no internet connection. My Dad, who has both, has no interest in downloading music. The point being, there are still many,mamy people who buy vynil,tape or CD.

A lot of people bought albums (vynil) AND cassettes to copy them to. My own cassette collection is predominantly home recorded, mainly because of the quality of the cassette itself along with higher quality tape. My LP's were played once to get them on reel tape, then put back into their sleeves and stored. Folks who don't have CD players in their cars STILL buy cassettes to copy their CD's to tape. This, of course, means they buy the CD FIRST.

As my mother would say, piracy "my left foot", (i don't know why it was the left foot). It's greed.

Well, that turned out to be quite the rant!:rant: :rant:

I'll leave some bandwidth for other posters.:beerchug:

:D Happy Listening:cool:
 
I don't think that the piracy issue will have a thing to do with the format that comes out as the best new thing.
Although the largest market, because of the type of sound they are looking for, the earthquake in the car generation is not generally looking for quality sound reproduction. They are also the Napster generation and probably will not buy gear or music based on quality but on content. This is just a generalization folks!!!
I went to Tower Records last night and they are selling the single play Sony DVD/SACD/CD player for $200.
The Sony SACDs also will play 5.1 discreet just like DVD A does, they have 2 layers so you can play Stereo too.
The thing I like about the little Sony is that for $200 you get a machine that stands up to the transports and DACs that were so expensive a few years back, it will play music in surround or stereo, the 20 bit recordings that are selling for less than $10 sound great on them and you can watch movies too.
While not the best SACD player I do like mine a lot and to tell the truth a single disc player usually lasts for many years. So I have the bases covered while I sit on the sidelines for a little more than the price of 10 new discs. I have had mine for over 2 months now.
 
Some very interesting comments and particularly links to some of the new compressed formats in this thread .

I may invite Moogfan to tell us some more in this forum to those that are interested.

:)
 
I could see the need for compressed mp3s disappearing in the next few years due to increasing hard drive sizes, if it were up to me I would get all my music at CD quality but it's just so easy to get mp3s on the internet that I don't see that happening. That being said, i'd gladly pay $650 dollars to have all the mp3s I have now in full CD quality on my computer, but that taking up about 40 gigs, it would only be if I had a new computer. I don't like buying CDs because you spend 15 dollars for like 3 songs alot of the time and I'll never pay for mp3s because it's a shitty format with weak bass and and grainy mixed-together highs. I'd pay a dollar a song to download CD quality files.
 
After a couple down years, CD sales were actually up 5% in '04. LP sales are an infinitesimal blip on the radar, comprising about 1.5% of total sales. The very slight rise in sales was the "bounce at the bottom" and the retro fad for all things 70's (and some DJ's are using them for effects). LP will survive as the niche product it's been for the last decade, but it's never gonna be much bigger than it is now. It's day as the champ are gone forever.

That said, neither DVD-A nor SACD have really made much headway, either. Sales of both combined are still only about equal to those of LP. Sad as it is to say, Thor is probably right- the future is MP3, or some other format very much like it. Sure, DRM issues abound, but Apple has found the way to make a ton of money off downloads. Studios would love to go to a media-less "format". If they could do so, no one would ever physically own anything again. And think of the pure cash; no money spent on packaging, pressing, or distribution. And no middleman, conceivably.

I think DVD-A and SACD will hang on as niche products, too. At least til Blu-ray or HD-DVD take over. HD-DVD has already adopted MLP as a mandatory part of the standard, so technically it will be able to exactly match DVD-A. But it can also put a full rez HD picture alongside it! :yes: In the end, I expect manufactures to use whichever new DVD standard survives as an audio carrier, too. Sony hasn't announced what hi rez sound standard it will adopt, but will anyone here be shocked if they go with DSD? Anyone up for "Format War, Part II"?

But I don't see the plain ol' Redbook CD going away anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
SACD and DVD-A will probably remain niche markets. Sony has pretty much bailed on SACD. If they really wanted to push, they would make all CDs hybrids. Its the smaller labels that are keeping SACD alive.
CD will be the dominant format for a very long time. Downloading may get more popular over time, especially with some of the lossless formats out there, but I'm not sure how well it will work for those of us who listen to albums, not songs and I'm not sure how much classical is downloadable.
I guess, time will tell.
Jack
 
Rob Babcock said:
That said, neither DVD-A nor SACD have really made much headway, either. Sales of both combined are still only about equal to those of LP. Sad as it is to say, Thor is probably right- the future is MP3, or some other format very much like it. Sure, DRM issues abound, but Apple has found the way to make a ton of money off downloads. Studios would love to go to a media-less "format". If they could do so, no one would ever physically own anything again. And think of the pure cash; no money spent on packaging, pressing, or distribution. And no middleman, conceivably.
I wonder when we're all gonna be able to live completely PPV...ya right

But I don't see the plain ol' Redbook CD going away anytime soon.

Definitely.
 
Last edited:
Based on what I have read in some of the past articles of Stereophile, DVD-A may not be able to catch SACD. There are about 10,000 SACD titles compared to about 1500 for DVD-A so the numbers suggest the SACD has a commanding lead. As far as some of the comments toward those of us who listen to vinyl, there is an article in Stereophile but I do not have that issue here at work that compared the number of sales of Redbook CD's to the number of sales of new record albums and they claim that those two (2) numbers are close to being equal. IMO, the Redbook CD will be here for some time to come as the mass market has not accepted either SACD or DVD-A as an acceptable alternative to the Redbook CD. As an example of this, go to Best Buy and look at the selection one has for the Redbook CD's versus anything else. MP3 - I agree that some type format as this has the potential to take the market as many in the younger generation are moving toward these pocket machines as their choice for a listening format. Not only can you take it with you, but you can plug it into the computer at work or at home and have your library right there with you. It is an interesting debate and one that will hopefully continue for a while.
 
And so you have to wonder where all that effort has gone to?

Isn't it awfully downheartening that this thread originated over two years ago and nearly NO progress has really managed to happen? So much for the "progress will make everything we have now obsolete" theory.

Blu-Ray is still talk, Sony and Toshiba are silly competing for a "standard" when even HDTV can't do that, and Apple did indeed reinvent the music distribution market...on a format "sort of like MP3".

All of which demonstrates that the 5" disc in any format will remain as the best example for a few years to come.

We told them so.
 
Apple has found the way to make a ton of money off downloads

Apple is not making money selling music. It is a loss leader to sell Ipods and other hardware. Steve Jobs has been quoted many times stating this. He has said most of the Itunes revenue goes to the music labels and to pay the costs of the Itunes storefront.

If I remember correctly, Apples makes 4 cents off a 99 cent download. The label receives 62 cents, the music publishers (the artists) get 8 cents. The remaining 26 cents goes to pay for Apple's technology costs.

John
 
Last edited:
Johncan said:
Apple is not making money selling music. It is a loss leader to sell Ipods and other hardware. Steve Jobs has been quoted many times stating this. He has said most of the Itunes revenue goes to the music labels and to pay the costs of the Itunes storefront.

If I remember correctly, Apples makes 4 cents off a 99 cent download. The label receives 62 cents, the music publishers (the artists) get 8 cents. The remaining 26 cents goes to pay for Apple's technology costs.

John

Not to be a smartass, but that's exactly how they're making the shitload of money! iTunes is selling iPods by the gazillion. And I expect once amortized, the cost of the technology will level off. Shutting out other formats may or may not help them, though; an iPod user just filed a lawsuit against Apple over not being able to use certain other file formats.

Obviously, the record labels have to love the deal with Apple- pure gravy from their POV. That's what will ultimately drive downloads. Apple doesn't care if they profit from the actual download, per se. But the labels will make out like bandits, and it will only increase over time. Obviously selling an album ala carte is more profitable than selling the whole thing in physical form. Especially when you factor in the lack of pressing and packaging.

Me, I've never bought a download and I doubt I ever will, at least not until I can get a lossless one. Perhaps I'd pay a very low price for downloads just to see if I wanted to buy the full rez version. Why pay full price for compressed music with no art, lyrics, jacket or printed disc? Of course, maybe someday there won't be a choice. :no:
 
Me, I've never bought a download and I doubt I ever will, at least not until I can get a lossless one. Perhaps I'd pay a very low price for downloads just to see if I wanted to buy the full rez version. Why pay full price for compressed music with no art, lyrics, jacket or printed disc? Of course, maybe someday there won't be a choice.

I don't disagree at all on the Ipod side of sales. They are racking it up.

I have never paid $.99 for one song, but I have purchased 192 VBR MP3s from emusic.com and allofmp3.com. You can get an entire album for under $2.00. It works for me because I love indie music anyway.

I would love to buy lossless files. I would pay $.99 for those or $10/album for lossless. A big plus would be to download the art as well.

As for DVD-A vs SACD, I have a SACD player and I like what little I have bought (Big Star, Bob Dylan, John Coltrane). I wish there was more diversity in titles. I would like to see more punk, post punk, jangle pop, and indie rock in the SACD format. However, I doubt that will ever happen. I can't imagine hearing Husker Du, the Buzzcocks, or the Weakerthans on SACD.

I have not heard DVD-A. I am not sure I want to hear more than two channels anyway. The Replacements in 5.1 would sound very strange and has little appeal to me.

I just hope that redbook CD keeps improving and that record labels stop compressing the volume levels in new recordings.

John
 
botrytis said:
DVD-A is two-channel also, just higher resolution. SACD can also be mutichannel, so it just adds to the confusion.

Dave

All of my DVD-A's are multichannel, actually. Even some old classics like DP's Machine Head and the Door's L.A. Woman. I don't care for the MC remixes, except for the song "Riders on the Storm"- it sounds amazing. On the other hand, the MC remix of Foreigner's 4 is fantastic from start to finish. My philosophy: give me the number of channels it was intended for. I'll gladly accept a MC remix, but be sure to include the original 2CH alongside it. That way everyone is happy.

You're not lying about the compression, Johncan. I've got some CDs of recent vintage that have only a few dB dynamic range. :no: Most of the best new stuff will never see the light of SACD or DVD-A, so I agree they should do the RBCD version carefully and get it right.
 
The reason I buy cd's is that the music I seek is only on that format. If it were available on a better format; Reel Tape, Vinyl, SACD or DVD-AUDIO; that's what I'd get!! NOT the cd. So for me, the reason I buy redbook cd's is because I'm forced to.
 
Back
Top Bottom