#1 I was going from memory - just the wrong one. And the only reason it wasn't used or considered a commercial product was because the price was so high.
It was readily available if you could afford it. The outlet for media on the other hand was probably harder to come by because there was really no home entertainment market other than personal movies.
#2 The average price of a new car in 1977 was $5,623.66; Today it's $28,000.00 So yes inflation is that bad. So when you say in 1977 the consumer version costed $1,400.00 your really saying that thing was far more expensive than any Blu Ray player ever made.
Oh please! You knew what people thought you were talking about and the idea you could compare these to products is really dumb! A VTR was a totally new product in the 50's whereas BR is another optical disc that were're all familure with. Not an almost prototype that was totally a new concept!
Read the opening paragragph :
" Charles Ginsburg led the research team at Ampex Corporation in developing the first practical videotape recorder (VTR). In 1951, the first video tape recorder (VTR) captured live images from television cameras by converting the information into electrical impulses and saving the information onto magnetic tape. "
It captured live images from television cameras as in a studio not at home! Or are you saying they had home TV cameras back then also?
Oh please! You knew what people thought you were talking about and the idea you could compare these to products is really dumb! A VTR was a totally new product in the 50's whereas BR is another optical disc that were're all familure with. Not an almost prototype that was totally a new concept!
Read the opening paragragph :
" Charles Ginsburg led the research team at Ampex Corporation in developing the first practical videotape recorder (VTR). In 1951, the first video tape recorder (VTR) captured live images from television cameras by converting the information into electrical impulses and saving the information onto magnetic tape. "
It captured live images from television cameras as in a studio not at home! Or are you saying they had home TV cameras back then also?
Weak Argument!
Your argument is the weak one. You're the one that totally left the subject completely. You're the one who is totally back peddling away from the fact that the $1,400.00 VCR in 1977 is about FIve Grand in todays cash. You just wont admit that Blu Ray is not that expensive in comparison because then you can not complain about how high the prices of Blu Ray players are when in reality they are totally reasonable. Why don't you just pull your head out, grow up, and admit that Blu Ray won, and is dong far better than they actually need to be to overtake the market within a reasonable time frame.
Your argument is the weak one. You're the one that totally left the subject completely. You're the one who is totally back peddling away from the fact that the $1,400.00 VCR in 1977 is about FIve Grand in todays cash. You just wont admit that Blu Ray is not that expensive in comparison because then you can not complain about how high the prices of Blu Ray players are when in reality they are totally reasonable. Why don't you just pull your had out, grow up, and admit that Blu Ray won, and is dong far better than they actually need to be to overtake the market within a reasonable time frame.
Oh come off it! You just don't know when to quit do you. You got caught with your pants down and now you're trying to divert the argument to something else!
Please!
" admit that Blu Ray won "
Hey read the post right before yours!
It says :
" No one is arguing that is the case. "
BR has yet to win the bigger contest against the main way people watch home video today. The DVD.
Quit trying to turn this into something else. Gotcha! Pure and simple!
Can you guys maybe start a new thread? That way the large quantity of people who no longer care about this topic will no longer get the "unread messages" icon.
Oh come off it! You just don't know when to quit do you. You got caught with your pants down and now you're trying to divert the argument to something else!
Please!
" admit that Blu Ray won "
Hey read the post right before yours!
It says :
" No one is arguing that is the case. "
BR has yet to win the bigger contest against the main way people watch home video today. The DVD.
Quit trying to turn this into something else. Gotcha! Pure and simple!
What the h3ll are you talking about? The whole diversion is from the original point which was made previously in the thread. Try keeping your head in the game rather than getting caught up in the obfuscated distractions. I have not taken the argument from the point. I'm the one trying to get it back on track.
He's talking about how you told us all to quit whining about the cost-of-entry to Blu-ray and cited the irrelevant cost-of-entry of a related technology 30 years ago.
Home video was a completely new market. Blu-ray is an evolution/revolution of that same market. It's a nearly entirely different situation. There was no entrenched, cheaper option for VHS and Betamax to compete with. Once VHS v. Betamax was over, the entire emerging home video market was VHS's to lose.
Blu-ray is in a different situation. Blu-ray has defeated HD DVD, but it still has to contend with the existing cheaper format as well as another emerging player in downloads and download rentals. That's why we're discussing whether or not Blu-ray has to become cheaper in a hurry. You say it doesn't because a related technology in an entirely different market situation was more expensive 30 years ago. You're trying very hard to have a different conversation all by yourself.
BR has yet to win the bigger contest against the main way people watch home video today. The DVD.
Quit trying to turn this into something else. Gotcha! Pure and simple!
As opposed to the goalpost movement for "victory" by HD-DVD proponents?
BR has plenty of time to win the bigger contest. At least one more Christmas (hey, you know...it's march?) and possibly a second. Arguing BR viability is like arguing who's going to win a game in the 1st quarter. In any case, while BR isn't as successful as DVD in the same time period it's not doing horribly either in comparison.
The millions of PS3 sales match the total number of DVD players at the same period in the lifecycle. That should start to change soon and BR should trail again unless standalone sales increase. Disc sales likely lag DVD for the same time period but the format war is likely a significant reason.
We'll see how well BR does this XMas but most of the whining is being done by Sony haters or HD-DVD proponents.
Any discussion of BR being non-viable is seriously premature. If it doesn't gain much traction this XMas then you can commence the doom and gloom for the format.
Blu-ray is the reigning HD disc champion having recently beaten out HD DVD in a bloody war for High Definition supremacy. Yet, in a surprise to no one who follows the music industry, the record industry is basically doing nothing about Blu-ray as a media for the future. Sony/BMG has stuck their toes in the water with some 24 bit/96 kHz audio soundtracks using Dolby TrueHD on Blu-ray for artists like Celine Dion, Dave Matthews and David Gilmore, but those are music video discs not just audio discs. There are a few handfuls of 24/96 titles for download from Music Giants and iTrax but that is about the extent of what you can buy for music in high resolution these days.
During the lose-lose battle between SACD and DVD-Audio in the early 2000s, there were a number of issues at hand that kept mainstream consumers (far) away including: a lack of any volume of meaningful titles beyond Pink Floyd?s "Dark Side of the Moon" and Queen?s "A Night at the Opera", players priced at $1,000 for far too long, the need for a new receiver or preamp with at least one, six channel analog input, the need for eight or more cables to make a connection, and lastly the overall parallelizing fear from major labels that consumers might steal their music in high resolution. We now know that people were going to steal what they were going to steal and that the four major labels, as they slide down the toilet along with their yearly sales, as well as their cultural relevance, can today, at best, sell you a $0.99 download that is one quarter the resolution of a Compact Disc - a format that is over 25 years old. Best yet is a computer company gets a king?s ransom of the profit from the sale in the transaction.
Blu-ray offers solutions to all of SACD's and DVD-Audio's weaknesses, yet it is being completely ignored. Blu-ray players today are priced closer to $300, not $1,000, and are likely to get significantly less expensive in the next six to 12 months. Blu-ray players offer meaningful copy protection via HDCP (post hate mail on AVRevForum.com) over a one-cable solution, instead of the upwards of nine cables needed for a DVD-Audio machine. Unlike DVD-Audio and SACD players, there are millions of Blu-ray players in the market right now thanks to the Playstation 3, plus the stand-alone units. Millions more Blu-ray players will follow in the months after the death of HD DVD and as consumers head toward the 2008 holiday season, where Blu-ray is sure to be a big hit. A hit record or important archival album released today on Blu-ray, complete with HD video supplemental materials, Dolby TrueHD and or DTS-HD Master audio tracks would actually offer the customer a value for his or her $20, and possibly would inspire them to look at investing in a music collection that is something more than a bunch of files waiting for a hard drive to crash.
Step One - Bring back the oldies but goodies from SACD and DVD-Audio:
The first step in launching high-resolution music on Blu-ray would be to repackage the top 100 to 250 titles from DVD-Audio and SACD in a meaningful and value-laden package, targeted to music enthusiasts and audiophiles. Now, audiophiles as we all know, cannot make or break any audio format, but they do start trends. The momentum that comes from audiophiles and music enthusiasts would start the ball rolling with relatively little cost. In fact, artists today would be more likely to consider new venues to sell their music now as opposed to back in 2000 when they thought they could fight music on SACD and or DVD-Audio.
Step Two - Look to back-catalog titles for the future of audio:
The four major labels need to remaster their top 100 selling records into a high-resolution format (like uncompressed PCM or DTS-HD or Dolby TrueHD) and pair it with HD video content, HD video interviews and beyond. It should be different for each release. Kids might like video games along with their discs. Boomers might like to see what Eric Clapton looks like at his age, close-up in HD. To each their own. All the records don't have to have surround sound tracks. In fact, they can be re-sold later with surround sound as a ?remastered? release, but they do need high-resolution stereo audio such as 24-bit/96kHz (or higher) resolution. To the music buying public this is a better value proposition than buying a crappy, over-priced Compact Disc for $14.95 that can be stolen for free off the Internet. Imagine how many Boomers would buy the top 100 Blue Note records in high resolution on Blu-ray even if sold as a boxed set. Imagine how many pre-teen kids would buy a Hannah Montana record loaded with supplemental materials just play them on their PS3. It would be a platinum hit on both fronts, and would represent a profit model that is exponentially superior to that of selling low-resolution downloads.
Step Three - Lights, Camera, Rock and Roll Action:
The majors could quickly repackage the DVD-Video disc concert videos into HD, considering many of them were shot natively in high definition. Remastered surround sound tracks and beautiful high-definition video would make the ?new album? be an audio/video experience that is worth the $20 per disc price of admission. Next, send all of the biggest and best artists on the majors out on tour this summer with HD cameras and recording equipment capable of capturing an event in HD. Record bands rehearsing. Record bands playing small venues. Record bands backstage. Make the ?new album? be more in tune with a society that socially networks. Make the ?new album? on Blu-ray more in tune with people who worship celebrities and watch reality TV. It's time record labels understand that Myspace and Facebook are a bigger deal than any new artists they have in their stables, and that it is time to really change the product being sold, beyond silly downloads.
Conclusion
Now that I have teased you with a concept that you would spend money on, don?t expect for a minute that the majors are smart enough to realize that their problem is their CDs, and Downloads aren?t worth the money people pay for them. This is in fact the reason why their sales are down more than 20 billion a year in domestic sales ? not kids stealing music off the Internet. Music sold just fine when I was a 10 year-old kid, recording songs from FM radio and making cassette recordings. The music was better then and the CD (a brand new format at the time) was irresistibly sexy. Blu-ray is that for today?s market. It's time for the labels to wake up to the cold reality that they suck at doing business. They have no clue why their customers are spending money on movies in HD, games in HD, televisions in HD, while they are selling music in one quarter the resolution of what you can get from a CD sold in 1983. It's pathetic, but it's true. And, what is even more pathetic is that the majors are unlikely to do anything meaningful about it.
What do you gentlemen think? I really would love to see high quality music on the Blu-ray format...I think it definitely would spur consumers to buy discs for music to get their collections in the best quality possible. I think the time is ripe too, before any other format tries to sweep in and try the ol' high-def music jargon as a competing format.
What do you gentlemen think? I really would love to see high quality music on the Blu-ray format...I think it definitely would spur consumers to buy discs for music to get their collections in the best quality possible. I think the time is ripe too, before any other format tries to sweep in and try the ol' high-def music jargon as a competing format.
Thoughts?
I don't see it happening.
1) The market for music on physical media is dying in favour of downloadable, lower quality media. Most people care about ease of use than higher quality.
2) BD are not ubiquitous in the home and arent' even a consideration for the automobile, where more music is listened to.
3) Despite the higher quality, It's cost prohibitive. DVD drives with 12x the capacity of CD would be a better option, but that won't happen either.
I can already get excellent copies of music I want by several means and even CDs are still sufficient to that end. In this case BR just adds cost and dubious value to a the dying segment of music on physical media.
Movies are still a ways off but eventually the same thing will happen to them.
Come on, Marz, gentlemen? We fight down and dirty here, nothing gentlemanly about it.
Seriously, music on BD as a replacement for CD IMO will never fly. While downloading HDM movies is a pie in the sky for most people because of lack of sufficient broadband speed, that's definitely not the case for music. Let's face it, while CDs may not be dead, they're never going to have the impact they once had, downloads and file sharing are eating CDs lunch now. There may, however, be a very small specialized submarket for music on BD, for example opera or classical concerts or pop entertainer concerts.
I have the Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds Live at Radio City BD, it was a freebie on a BOGO deal, and it looks and sounds great. But personally I find the quality of .mp3s from my iPod played through my receiver and speaker systems more than good enough for me. Of course, YMMV.
I think way too much is being made that BD has to supplant DVD or it's a failure. I'm not sure if that will happen but I'm pretty positive that BD will gain enough critical mass and gain enough support from studios that it will at least become a fairly large niche market much as LD was with VHS. That will be good enough to be a success with me.
Come on, Marz, gentlemen? We fight down and dirty here, nothing gentlemanly about it.
Seriously, music on BD as a replacement for CD IMO will never fly. While downloading HDM movies is a pie in the sky for most people because of lack of sufficient broadband speed, that's definitely not the case for music. Let's face it, while CDs may not be dead, they're never going to have the impact they once had, downloads and file sharing are eating CDs lunch now. There may, however, be a very small specialized submarket for music on BD, for example opera or classical concerts or pop entertainer concerts.
I have the Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds Live at Radio City BD, it was a freebie on a BOGO deal, and it looks and sounds great. But personally I find the quality of .mp3s from my iPod played through my receiver and speaker systems more than good enough for me. Of course, YMMV.
I'm in a polite mood I guess. I don't know what the heck came over me.
While I agree with most of your assesment as well as some others that have given their points as well, the techie perfectionist in me would love to have 7.1 Audio surround sound with a remarkable improvement in sound quality with Blu-ray audio. I think people would be able to tell the difference, but it would take education on the part of the music labels as well as a good marketing strategy. And for those who even claim to not have the ability to discern between low quality downloads and something as high quality as Blu-ray audio discs could potentially have, at the very least, a good marketing strategy will make those minded individuals feel as if they need to upgrade, much like computer companies influence consumers to continually upgrade--like Apple and their higher quality downloads.
So, IMO, I think it is possible to have a Blu-ray audio format, but it will require the aforementioned pieces, among other things.
I'm in a polite mood I guess. I don't know what the heck came over me.
While I agree with most of your assesment as well as some others that have given their points as well, the techie perfectionist in me would love to have 7.1 Audio surround sound with a remarkable improvement in sound quality with Blu-ray audio. I think people would be able to tell the difference, but it would take education on the part of the music labels as well as a good marketing strategy. And for those who even claim to not have the ability to discern between low quality downloads and something as high quality as Blu-ray audio discs could potentially have, at the very least, a good marketing strategy will make those minded individuals feel as if they need to upgrade, much like computer companies influence consumers to continually upgrade--like Apple and their higher quality downloads.
So, IMO, I think it is possible to have a Blu-ray audio format, but it will require the aforementioned pieces, among other things.
It could be great quality, but as far as music is concerned physical media has already lost mindshare and marketshare. No amount of marketing can help that now. When a download service has become the #2 music seller, the people thumping physical media can pack up and go home. Their battle is lost already.
It could be great quality, but as far as music is concerned physical media has already lost mindshare and marketshare. No amount of marketing can help that now. When a download service has become the #2 music seller, the people thumping physical media can pack up and go home. Their battle is lost already.
Mmmmmaybe. I think the loss of mindshare and marketshare is two-fold and not so one dimensionable. I agree with you that downloads had a big hand in decreasing the mindshare and marketshare, but I also think, as the article stated, that the simple fact of peddling 10+ year old technology and not offering the consumer a CLEAR next gen alternative also had a heavy hand in the physical format's loss of share--for the mind and market.
I still think if the music labels grew some boulders between their legs and offered a unified message of Blu-ray audio being the next physical music format, it still could gain traction.
Can you guys maybe start a new thread? That way the large quantity of people who no longer care about this topic will no longer get the "unread messages" icon.
Couldn't you just unsubscribe from the thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by marzetta7
Record Labels Ignore Blu-ray Format To Replace The Ailing CD
Ignoring Blu-Ray is probably the first thing Big Music has done right.
It will needlessly raise the cost of distribution (driving more people to downloads), and add little to the experience. Also, trying to force everyone to go out and buy a new car stereo would be a recipe for disaster.
DRM on music is largely dead. Long live iTunes and AmazonMP3.
CDs will be replaced by ExpressCards or SD media long before BluRay discs.
Comments
Blu-ray vs. HD DVD (RIP) (2008)
#1 I was going from memory - just the wrong one. And the only reason it wasn't used or considered a commercial product was because the price was so high.
It was readily available if you could afford it. The outlet for media on the other hand was probably harder to come by because there was really no home entertainment market other than personal movies.
#2 The average price of a new car in 1977 was $5,623.66; Today it's $28,000.00 So yes inflation is that bad. So when you say in 1977 the consumer version costed $1,400.00 your really saying that thing was far more expensive than any Blu Ray player ever made.
Oh please! You knew what people thought you were talking about and the idea you could compare these to products is really dumb! A VTR was a totally new product in the 50's whereas BR is another optical disc that were're all familure with. Not an almost prototype that was totally a new concept!
Read the opening paragragph :
" Charles Ginsburg led the research team at Ampex Corporation in developing the first practical videotape recorder (VTR). In 1951, the first video tape recorder (VTR) captured live images from television cameras by converting the information into electrical impulses and saving the information onto magnetic tape. "
It captured live images from television cameras as in a studio not at home! Or are you saying they had home TV cameras back then also?
Weak Argument!
I think the title of the thread should be changed to:
Blu-ray vs. HD DVD (RIP) (2008)
No one is arguing that is the case. We are talking about the viability of BR now in the aftermath of the war.
Oh please! You knew what people thought you were talking about and the idea you could compare these to products is really dumb! A VTR was a totally new product in the 50's whereas BR is another optical disc that were're all familure with. Not an almost prototype that was totally a new concept!
Read the opening paragragph :
" Charles Ginsburg led the research team at Ampex Corporation in developing the first practical videotape recorder (VTR). In 1951, the first video tape recorder (VTR) captured live images from television cameras by converting the information into electrical impulses and saving the information onto magnetic tape. "
It captured live images from television cameras as in a studio not at home! Or are you saying they had home TV cameras back then also?
Weak Argument!
Your argument is the weak one. You're the one that totally left the subject completely. You're the one who is totally back peddling away from the fact that the $1,400.00 VCR in 1977 is about FIve Grand in todays cash. You just wont admit that Blu Ray is not that expensive in comparison because then you can not complain about how high the prices of Blu Ray players are when in reality they are totally reasonable. Why don't you just pull your head out, grow up, and admit that Blu Ray won, and is dong far better than they actually need to be to overtake the market within a reasonable time frame.
Your argument is the weak one. You're the one that totally left the subject completely. You're the one who is totally back peddling away from the fact that the $1,400.00 VCR in 1977 is about FIve Grand in todays cash. You just wont admit that Blu Ray is not that expensive in comparison because then you can not complain about how high the prices of Blu Ray players are when in reality they are totally reasonable. Why don't you just pull your had out, grow up, and admit that Blu Ray won, and is dong far better than they actually need to be to overtake the market within a reasonable time frame.
Oh come off it! You just don't know when to quit do you. You got caught with your pants down and now you're trying to divert the argument to something else!
Please!
" admit that Blu Ray won "
Hey read the post right before yours!
It says :
" No one is arguing that is the case. "
BR has yet to win the bigger contest against the main way people watch home video today. The DVD.
Quit trying to turn this into something else. Gotcha! Pure and simple!
Oh come off it! You just don't know when to quit do you. You got caught with your pants down and now you're trying to divert the argument to something else!
Please!
" admit that Blu Ray won "
Hey read the post right before yours!
It says :
" No one is arguing that is the case. "
BR has yet to win the bigger contest against the main way people watch home video today. The DVD.
Quit trying to turn this into something else. Gotcha! Pure and simple!
What the h3ll are you talking about? The whole diversion is from the original point which was made previously in the thread. Try keeping your head in the game rather than getting caught up in the obfuscated distractions. I have not taken the argument from the point. I'm the one trying to get it back on track.
Home video was a completely new market. Blu-ray is an evolution/revolution of that same market. It's a nearly entirely different situation. There was no entrenched, cheaper option for VHS and Betamax to compete with. Once VHS v. Betamax was over, the entire emerging home video market was VHS's to lose.
Blu-ray is in a different situation. Blu-ray has defeated HD DVD, but it still has to contend with the existing cheaper format as well as another emerging player in downloads and download rentals. That's why we're discussing whether or not Blu-ray has to become cheaper in a hurry. You say it doesn't because a related technology in an entirely different market situation was more expensive 30 years ago.
" No one is arguing that is the case. "
Too bad that's actually the thread topic.
BR has yet to win the bigger contest against the main way people watch home video today. The DVD.
Quit trying to turn this into something else. Gotcha! Pure and simple!
As opposed to the goalpost movement for "victory" by HD-DVD proponents?
BR has plenty of time to win the bigger contest. At least one more Christmas (hey, you know...it's march?) and possibly a second. Arguing BR viability is like arguing who's going to win a game in the 1st quarter. In any case, while BR isn't as successful as DVD in the same time period it's not doing horribly either in comparison.
The millions of PS3 sales match the total number of DVD players at the same period in the lifecycle. That should start to change soon and BR should trail again unless standalone sales increase. Disc sales likely lag DVD for the same time period but the format war is likely a significant reason.
We'll see how well BR does this XMas but most of the whining is being done by Sony haters or HD-DVD proponents.
Any discussion of BR being non-viable is seriously premature. If it doesn't gain much traction this XMas then you can commence the doom and gloom for the format.
I said awhile ago they both were eventually going to loose to digital downloads and video on demand.
http://www.avrev.com/news/0308/06.bluraylabels270.shtml
Blu-ray is the reigning HD disc champion having recently beaten out HD DVD in a bloody war for High Definition supremacy. Yet, in a surprise to no one who follows the music industry, the record industry is basically doing nothing about Blu-ray as a media for the future. Sony/BMG has stuck their toes in the water with some 24 bit/96 kHz audio soundtracks using Dolby TrueHD on Blu-ray for artists like Celine Dion, Dave Matthews and David Gilmore, but those are music video discs not just audio discs. There are a few handfuls of 24/96 titles for download from Music Giants and iTrax but that is about the extent of what you can buy for music in high resolution these days.
During the lose-lose battle between SACD and DVD-Audio in the early 2000s, there were a number of issues at hand that kept mainstream consumers (far) away including: a lack of any volume of meaningful titles beyond Pink Floyd?s "Dark Side of the Moon" and Queen?s "A Night at the Opera", players priced at $1,000 for far too long, the need for a new receiver or preamp with at least one, six channel analog input, the need for eight or more cables to make a connection, and lastly the overall parallelizing fear from major labels that consumers might steal their music in high resolution. We now know that people were going to steal what they were going to steal and that the four major labels, as they slide down the toilet along with their yearly sales, as well as their cultural relevance, can today, at best, sell you a $0.99 download that is one quarter the resolution of a Compact Disc - a format that is over 25 years old. Best yet is a computer company gets a king?s ransom of the profit from the sale in the transaction.
Blu-ray offers solutions to all of SACD's and DVD-Audio's weaknesses, yet it is being completely ignored. Blu-ray players today are priced closer to $300, not $1,000, and are likely to get significantly less expensive in the next six to 12 months. Blu-ray players offer meaningful copy protection via HDCP (post hate mail on AVRevForum.com) over a one-cable solution, instead of the upwards of nine cables needed for a DVD-Audio machine. Unlike DVD-Audio and SACD players, there are millions of Blu-ray players in the market right now thanks to the Playstation 3, plus the stand-alone units. Millions more Blu-ray players will follow in the months after the death of HD DVD and as consumers head toward the 2008 holiday season, where Blu-ray is sure to be a big hit. A hit record or important archival album released today on Blu-ray, complete with HD video supplemental materials, Dolby TrueHD and or DTS-HD Master audio tracks would actually offer the customer a value for his or her $20, and possibly would inspire them to look at investing in a music collection that is something more than a bunch of files waiting for a hard drive to crash.
Step One - Bring back the oldies but goodies from SACD and DVD-Audio:
The first step in launching high-resolution music on Blu-ray would be to repackage the top 100 to 250 titles from DVD-Audio and SACD in a meaningful and value-laden package, targeted to music enthusiasts and audiophiles. Now, audiophiles as we all know, cannot make or break any audio format, but they do start trends. The momentum that comes from audiophiles and music enthusiasts would start the ball rolling with relatively little cost. In fact, artists today would be more likely to consider new venues to sell their music now as opposed to back in 2000 when they thought they could fight music on SACD and or DVD-Audio.
Step Two - Look to back-catalog titles for the future of audio:
The four major labels need to remaster their top 100 selling records into a high-resolution format (like uncompressed PCM or DTS-HD or Dolby TrueHD) and pair it with HD video content, HD video interviews and beyond. It should be different for each release. Kids might like video games along with their discs. Boomers might like to see what Eric Clapton looks like at his age, close-up in HD. To each their own. All the records don't have to have surround sound tracks. In fact, they can be re-sold later with surround sound as a ?remastered? release, but they do need high-resolution stereo audio such as 24-bit/96kHz (or higher) resolution. To the music buying public this is a better value proposition than buying a crappy, over-priced Compact Disc for $14.95 that can be stolen for free off the Internet. Imagine how many Boomers would buy the top 100 Blue Note records in high resolution on Blu-ray even if sold as a boxed set. Imagine how many pre-teen kids would buy a Hannah Montana record loaded with supplemental materials just play them on their PS3. It would be a platinum hit on both fronts, and would represent a profit model that is exponentially superior to that of selling low-resolution downloads.
Step Three - Lights, Camera, Rock and Roll Action:
The majors could quickly repackage the DVD-Video disc concert videos into HD, considering many of them were shot natively in high definition. Remastered surround sound tracks and beautiful high-definition video would make the ?new album? be an audio/video experience that is worth the $20 per disc price of admission. Next, send all of the biggest and best artists on the majors out on tour this summer with HD cameras and recording equipment capable of capturing an event in HD. Record bands rehearsing. Record bands playing small venues. Record bands backstage. Make the ?new album? be more in tune with a society that socially networks. Make the ?new album? on Blu-ray more in tune with people who worship celebrities and watch reality TV. It's time record labels understand that Myspace and Facebook are a bigger deal than any new artists they have in their stables, and that it is time to really change the product being sold, beyond silly downloads.
Conclusion
Now that I have teased you with a concept that you would spend money on, don?t expect for a minute that the majors are smart enough to realize that their problem is their CDs, and Downloads aren?t worth the money people pay for them. This is in fact the reason why their sales are down more than 20 billion a year in domestic sales ? not kids stealing music off the Internet. Music sold just fine when I was a 10 year-old kid, recording songs from FM radio and making cassette recordings. The music was better then and the CD (a brand new format at the time) was irresistibly sexy. Blu-ray is that for today?s market. It's time for the labels to wake up to the cold reality that they suck at doing business. They have no clue why their customers are spending money on movies in HD, games in HD, televisions in HD, while they are selling music in one quarter the resolution of what you can get from a CD sold in 1983. It's pathetic, but it's true. And, what is even more pathetic is that the majors are unlikely to do anything meaningful about it.
What do you gentlemen think? I really would love to see high quality music on the Blu-ray format...I think it definitely would spur consumers to buy discs for music to get their collections in the best quality possible. I think the time is ripe too, before any other format tries to sweep in and try the ol' high-def music jargon as a competing format.
Thoughts?
What do you gentlemen think? I really would love to see high quality music on the Blu-ray format...I think it definitely would spur consumers to buy discs for music to get their collections in the best quality possible. I think the time is ripe too, before any other format tries to sweep in and try the ol' high-def music jargon as a competing format.
Thoughts?
I don't see it happening.
1) The market for music on physical media is dying in favour of downloadable, lower quality media. Most people care about ease of use than higher quality.
2) BD are not ubiquitous in the home and arent' even a consideration for the automobile, where more music is listened to.
3) Despite the higher quality, It's cost prohibitive. DVD drives with 12x the capacity of CD would be a better option, but that won't happen either.
Movies are still a ways off but eventually the same thing will happen to them.
Seriously, music on BD as a replacement for CD IMO will never fly. While downloading HDM movies is a pie in the sky for most people because of lack of sufficient broadband speed, that's definitely not the case for music. Let's face it, while CDs may not be dead, they're never going to have the impact they once had, downloads and file sharing are eating CDs lunch now. There may, however, be a very small specialized submarket for music on BD, for example opera or classical concerts or pop entertainer concerts.
I have the Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds Live at Radio City BD, it was a freebie on a BOGO deal, and it looks and sounds great. But personally I find the quality of .mp3s from my iPod played through my receiver and speaker systems more than good enough for me. Of course, YMMV.
Come on, Marz, gentlemen? We fight down and dirty here, nothing gentlemanly about it.
Seriously, music on BD as a replacement for CD IMO will never fly. While downloading HDM movies is a pie in the sky for most people because of lack of sufficient broadband speed, that's definitely not the case for music. Let's face it, while CDs may not be dead, they're never going to have the impact they once had, downloads and file sharing are eating CDs lunch now. There may, however, be a very small specialized submarket for music on BD, for example opera or classical concerts or pop entertainer concerts.
I have the Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds Live at Radio City BD, it was a freebie on a BOGO deal, and it looks and sounds great. But personally I find the quality of .mp3s from my iPod played through my receiver and speaker systems more than good enough for me. Of course, YMMV.
While I agree with most of your assesment as well as some others that have given their points as well, the techie perfectionist in me would love to have 7.1 Audio surround sound with a remarkable improvement in sound quality with Blu-ray audio. I think people would be able to tell the difference, but it would take education on the part of the music labels as well as a good marketing strategy. And for those who even claim to not have the ability to discern between low quality downloads and something as high quality as Blu-ray audio discs could potentially have, at the very least, a good marketing strategy will make those minded individuals feel as if they need to upgrade, much like computer companies influence consumers to continually upgrade--like Apple and their higher quality downloads.
So, IMO, I think it is possible to have a Blu-ray audio format, but it will require the aforementioned pieces, among other things.
While I agree with most of your assesment as well as some others that have given their points as well, the techie perfectionist in me would love to have 7.1 Audio surround sound with a remarkable improvement in sound quality with Blu-ray audio. I think people would be able to tell the difference, but it would take education on the part of the music labels as well as a good marketing strategy. And for those who even claim to not have the ability to discern between low quality downloads and something as high quality as Blu-ray audio discs could potentially have, at the very least, a good marketing strategy will make those minded individuals feel as if they need to upgrade, much like computer companies influence consumers to continually upgrade--like Apple and their higher quality downloads.
So, IMO, I think it is possible to have a Blu-ray audio format, but it will require the aforementioned pieces, among other things.
It could be great quality, but as far as music is concerned physical media has already lost mindshare and marketshare. No amount of marketing can help that now. When a download service has become the #2 music seller, the people thumping physical media can pack up and go home. Their battle is lost already.
It could be great quality, but as far as music is concerned physical media has already lost mindshare and marketshare. No amount of marketing can help that now. When a download service has become the #2 music seller, the people thumping physical media can pack up and go home. Their battle is lost already.
Mmmmmaybe. I think the loss of mindshare and marketshare is two-fold and not so one dimensionable. I agree with you that downloads had a big hand in decreasing the mindshare and marketshare, but I also think, as the article stated, that the simple fact of peddling 10+ year old technology and not offering the consumer a CLEAR next gen alternative also had a heavy hand in the physical format's loss of share--for the mind and market.
I still think if the music labels grew some boulders between their legs and offered a unified message of Blu-ray audio being the next physical music format, it still could gain traction.
No one is arguing that is the case. We are talking about the viability of BR now in the aftermath of the war.
Humor is sometimes lost in the fray....
Can you guys maybe start a new thread? That way the large quantity of people who no longer care about this topic will no longer get the "unread messages" icon.
Couldn't you just unsubscribe from the thread?
Record Labels Ignore Blu-ray Format To Replace The Ailing CD
Ignoring Blu-Ray is probably the first thing Big Music has done right.
It will needlessly raise the cost of distribution (driving more people to downloads), and add little to the experience. Also, trying to force everyone to go out and buy a new car stereo would be a recipe for disaster.
DRM on music is largely dead. Long live iTunes and AmazonMP3.
CDs will be replaced by ExpressCards or SD media long before BluRay discs.