SACD and DVD-A dead, are CD's it? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : SACD and DVD-A dead, are CD's it?



JeffKnob
11-24-2010, 08:00 AM
With SACD's and DVD-Audio dead are CD's going to be the best we can get? When SACD's and DVD-A's out years ago I was excited that we would be able to get higher resolution audio. Are CD's going to be the highest we are going to get? Is there anything in the works using maybe Blurays?

Feanor
11-24-2010, 08:49 AM
With SACD's and DVD-Audio dead are CD's going to be the best we can get? When SACD's and DVD-A's out years ago I was excited that we would be able to get higher resolution audio. Are CD's going to be the highest we are going to get? Is there anything in the works using maybe Blurays?
Well, SACD isn't entirely dead if you like classical music, but otherwise for sure. And of course DVD-A is totally kaput.

Blu-Ray works great for music, but were are the recordings? There are some but not many and I doubt that many are forthcoming. Looks like download is the most likely source of hi-rez but there aren't many of these either.

Let's face it: the audiophile market is a small niche and the content purveyors have been distracted by vinyl, i.e. for some reason they feel this is all the audiophiles want.

harley .guy07
11-24-2010, 08:54 AM
I have heard of companies doing research using file formats based on the blue ray audio setup but I have not heard much about the mass market accepting it. I think a lot of the problem is that fact that cd has been out for so long and is cheap and easy to produce and most people if they are not getting their music by downloading it are totally fine with CD's quality. If more people could ot took the time to hear and know the difference between formats and request higher definition in there audio it might happen but then with downloaded music being the most popular music media today I would think they would put more time into high def downloads and not high def disks even though I do both and there are times when I still prefer disk media because it just has a more real feel to it. It really think that a blue ray type high def format might come out in music direct catalogs and the such but I don't think that you will see them at wal mart any time soon.

JeffKnob
11-24-2010, 09:59 AM
I was thinking that bluray would be the easiest way to bring something to the market as it already supports the highres. I think part of the problem with SACD or DVD-A is that specific players needed to be bought and they were more expensive than most people would want to spend to make the transition. If they could do one side as a regular CD for people to use in their cars or regular player and then a bluray side for the bigger systems, it could see more adoption. Of course this is all dependant on the studios starting with good recordings that will even take advantage of the higher resolution.

thekid
11-24-2010, 11:17 AM
With SACD's and DVD-Audio dead are CD's going to be the best we can get?

I agree SACD's and DVD-A are dead formats so being the green eco-friendly person that I am I encourage all AR members here to please send me your SACD's and DVD-A discs rather than let them clutter up some landfill somewhere. While you are at it please send me any cassettes and laserdiscs you also may have lying around. I will make sure all materials sent to me are properly disposed of.......... :biggrin5:

Luvin Da Blues
11-24-2010, 01:09 PM
I agree SACD's and DVD-A are dead formats so being the green eco-friendly person that I am I encourage all AR members here to please send me your SACD's and DVD-A discs rather than let them clutter up some landfill somewhere. While you are at it please send me any cassettes and laserdiscs you also may have lying around. I will make sure all materials sent to me are properly disposed of.......... :biggrin5:


Yer just a little too late..I just gave away 'bout 100 cassettes (Chrome & Metal) to the coworker I sold my HK deck to.

pixelthis
11-24-2010, 02:12 PM
I agree SACD's and DVD-A are dead formats so being the green eco-friendly person that I am I encourage all AR members here to please send me your SACD's and DVD-A discs rather than let them clutter up some landfill somewhere. While you are at it please send me any cassettes and laserdiscs you also may have lying around. I will make sure all materials sent to me are properly disposed of.......... :biggrin5:

DARN! And I TOSSED all of my laserdisc, would have been glad to helicopter the
several tons worth over to your house and dump it ON THE ROOF.
Tell ya what, I wasnt dumb enough to try Selectavision (needlevision), but a friend was.
Look for four or five crates to be heading your way, along with six thousand copies of
Learning Mandarin the easy way on long playing records, about fifty records to a
copy.
AND theres those ten thousand Hungarian opera 78's that uncle Julius left me...:1:

thekid
11-24-2010, 02:39 PM
DARN! And I TOSSED all of my laserdisc, would have been glad to helicopter the
several tons worth over to your house and dump it ON THE ROOF.
Tell ya what, I wasnt dumb enough to try Selectavision (needlevision), but a friend was.
Look for four or five crates to be heading your way, along with six thousand copies of
Learning Mandarin the easy way on long playing records, about fifty records to a
copy.
AND theres those ten thousand Hungarian opera 78's that uncle Julius left me...:1:

Thanks Pix!
I will look for the truck rolling up the street.
Soon I will be able to order my take out just like the pros....... :D

Have a Happy T-Day!

Poultrygeist
11-24-2010, 04:35 PM
SACD is far from dead. I have twice as many titles to choose from now than I did a few years ago.

I can see how those who don't care for jazz or classical might think it's dead.

By the way, I hear there's a new format on the horizon. Something called reel to reel?

Feanor
11-25-2010, 06:33 AM
SACD is far from dead. I have twice as many titles to choose from now than I did a few years ago.

I can see how those who don't care for jazz or classical might think it's dead.

By the way, I hear there's a new format on the horizon. Something called reel to reel?
You're right re. SACD.

Reel to reel? Pull-ease. I gave up on that in 1974. :frown2:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-25-2010, 08:44 AM
I am scratching my head on the comments on Bluray and audio. There are plenty of Bluray high resolution recordings out there...plenty of them. I own over a hundred, and my collection is growing weekly. Some have video, some don't. If you don't like the video, shut off your monitor after starting up the recording. I do that usually after the first view. All of these recordings are true high resolution recording, defiantly better than anything I have heard on DVD-A, and at least equaling or besting most recordings on SACD(at least from a technical basis).

While SACD isn't quite dead, it is an unsupported format abandon by Sony. Sony is no longer supporting the format with upgrades and improvements, so the only thing keeping the format alive now is a trickle of recordings that simulate the last breath of a dying human. DVD-A is gone. CD is on its way out as well, and downloads are replacing it very quickly.

Right now, the future of high resolution music lies in downloads and Bluray disc. I use both, but I prefer Bluray's because they sound better than the downloads I have. More and more music is coming out on Bluray, and I think when the music industry stabilizes(which may take a while), the record companies will take a long look at Bluray, and probably begin to put more music on the format. Once we get out of this recession(and yes we are still in one), things will stabilize, and we will begin to see where the industry is going. Right now the entire music industry is just flailing in the wind, and seeming almost direction less in their actions. While Itunes is cool, I think it is basically killing the concept of an album.

Feanor
11-25-2010, 09:38 AM
I am scratching my head on the comments on Bluray and audio. There are plenty of Bluray high resolution recordings out there...plenty of them. ....
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "plenty".

So at my favorite classical recordings source, ArkivMusic (http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/main.jsp), has 10's of thousands of CD titles, over 4400 DVD (some of which are actually Blu-ray), over 3000 SACD titles, and ... how many Blu-Ray per se?? It's hard to tell: Arkiv doesn't even have an easy way to search for them. However I finally discovered they have 207 Blu-ray or which virtually all are opera videos, (not that there's anything wrong with opera videos).

Same story at other classical recordings sites, e.g. MDT (http://www.mdt.co.uk/MDTSite/pages/home/default.asp) lists 207 Blu-rays, but again, almost all are opera videos. Crotchet (http://www.crotchet.co.uk/mainclassical.html), another UK classical vendor, lists 211 Blu-ray, almost all opera videos. Presto Classical (http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/) 205 Blu-ray offering, but again almost all are opera videos or live concert videos.

lomarica
11-25-2010, 10:13 AM
I have only a handful of SACD's but they sound sooo good. It is a real shame the format did not take off. DVD-A is even more strange my lexus plays them but I don't have any of the disks. I can play some SACD's in the car but it must be playing the CD layer which some SACD disks have.

What I do not understand is in the car the SACD disk (Dire Straits BIA) still sounds sooo good but it cannot be playing SACD as it is a DVD-A player. so how does is sound so much better than all my other disks if it only playing the CD layer.

also I am getting a new bluray and will want a universal player for SACD just to have it most likely it will be the new Oppo

thanks for any comments

JoeE SP9
11-25-2010, 11:39 AM
I agree SACD's and DVD-A are dead formats so being the green eco-friendly person that I am I encourage all AR members here to please send me your SACD's and DVD-A discs rather than let them clutter up some landfill somewhere. While you are at it please send me any cassettes and laserdiscs you also may have lying around. I will make sure all materials sent to me are properly disposed of.......... :biggrin5:

You said it before I could. Being quick on the draw is probably how you find such great deals.:biggrin5:

With that said, please send me half of your old LP's, SACD's, DVD-A's, LD's, Cassettes, RtR's etc. Send the other half to thekid. He did ask first.

I'll pay the shipping for anything I receive.:ihih:

JoeE SP9
11-25-2010, 11:49 AM
I have only a handful of SACD's but they sound sooo good. It is a real shame the format did not take off. DVD-A is even more strange my lexus plays them but I don't have any of the disks. I can play some SACD's in the car but it must be playing the CD layer which some SACD disks have.

What I do not understand is in the car the SACD disk (Dire Straits BIA) still sounds sooo good but it cannot be playing SACD as it is a DVD-A player. so how does is sound so much better than all my other disks if it only playing the CD layer.

also I am getting a new bluray and will want a universal player for SACD just to have it most likely it will be the new Oppo

thanks for any comments

Have you tried both layers on your home (?) system? If so, have you noticed the same differences? I have heard that the 44/16 track on many hybrid SACD's is the SACD mix processed to 2x44/16. That would make them different from the regular CD.

hifitommy
11-25-2010, 12:11 PM
its a HYBRID sacd/cd with readable layers for each format. its possible that when it was remastered for sacd that the new remix (which doesnt always guarantee improved sound) is responsible for that pleasantry. another possibility may be that DVDA players upsample like some sacd players which truly does improve sound.

do you have the old BIA cd for comparison?

i think STT will agree that part of the prob with sacd was the lack of readily available mixing/editing equipment that handled DSD sources. i think its a travesty that sony did not support the format by releasing ALL titles in hybrid format so retailers wouldnt have a problem selling their inventories.

because of that, i was able to score the billie holliday sacd 'lady in satin' for $5 at the now defunct Wherehouse record store on devonshire and balboa. as a non hybrid sacd, it could not be played on a regular cdp and probably returned for that reason.

i supported sacd right from the start and didnt mind paying about $14 for one new which was the list price for most CDs which in my opinion have never been worth that inflated price. the artist's share went down with the advent of cd and the temporary wane in the LP. the cost of production went down which put more dollars in the pockets of the record companies and less where it belonged-in the pockets of the artist.

i felt that the improved sound was worth that much but sony didnt support the format as well as some of us consumers. well, CRAP!

now i also bemoan the death of dvda but only so many formats can exist as evidenced by the fate of the quad format war. wont the manufacturers ever learn?

Happy Camper
11-25-2010, 12:39 PM
We need to stay with one format long enough for the mainstream customer to re-build their libraries but it won't happen. I'm not going to chase wishes and theories. CD works for me and I'm not going to spend to change out for another format. Last time was LP to CD. While that debate continues we have went from digital generation CD, DVD, SACD/DVD-A, Blu Ray in less time than it took to get to stereo from mono.

The industry could build some good will by crediting old formats when buying the new but won't. Imagine what's going to happen to everyone who pony'ed up for multi thousand dollar DACs to be obsoleted by Blu Ray.

If well miked, mixed and recorded, CD can be remarkably good and the lack of genre in the newer formats just loses the spender with the resources to buy.

Vinyl was the only format mature enough to develop fully and keeps the purist loyal today.

IMO

Feanor
11-25-2010, 01:55 PM
With SACD's and DVD-Audio dead are CD's going to be the best we can get? When SACD's and DVD-A's out years ago I was excited that we would be able to get higher resolution audio. Are CD's going to be the highest we are going to get? Is there anything in the works using maybe Blurays?
Actually, for stereo I'm fine with CD.

Yeah, it's true. Now that I'm old and deaf (above 10kHz), I really can't hear, (or don't care about, which amounts to the same thing), the difference between a well-produced & engineered CD and an SACD. And LPs are people who prefer a particular sort of euphonic filtering over accuracy.

So while the typical SACD sounds better than a typical CD, (in stereo), I attribute that to greater care in the engineering process, not from the actual medium of distribution. I say this after due comparisons of the CD to the SACD stereo layers of hybrid discs. Of course, the are many fantasically good-sounding CDs without SACD versions.

What CD lacks only, IMO, the ability to deliver multi-channel. Let me assert that M/C can do what stereo simply cannot, assuming good record production and a good system to play it on. But then obviously Blu-ray can deliver this as well or better than SACD.

But I'm not hoping that Blu-ray replaces CD -- not, at least, unless I can a rip digital copy from the Blu-ray disc. Currently downloads are not a satisfactory alternative, in as much as the selection of CD-or-better resolution files is far too limited.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-25-2010, 02:39 PM
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "plenty".

So at my favorite classical recordings source, ArkivMusic (http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/main.jsp), has 10's of thousands of CD titles, over 4400 DVD (some of which are actually Blu-ray), over 3000 SACD titles, and ... how many Blu-Ray per se?? It's hard to tell: Arkiv doesn't even have an easy way to search for them. However I finally discovered they have 207 Blu-ray or which virtually all are opera videos, (not that there's anything wrong with opera videos).

Same story at other classical recordings sites, e.g. MDT (http://www.mdt.co.uk/MDTSite/pages/home/default.asp) lists 207 Blu-rays, but again, almost all are opera videos. Crotchet (http://www.crotchet.co.uk/mainclassical.html), another UK classical vendor, lists 211 Blu-ray, almost all opera videos. Presto Classical (http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/) 205 Blu-ray offering, but again almost all are opera videos or live concert videos.

I understand where you are coming from, but remember, the Bluray format is just 4 years old. Just like it took time for titles to come out on CD and DVD, it will take time for titles to come out on Bluray. With Bluray spec's being what it is, we have the opportunity to enjoy music at a far higher level(and I mean FAR), than CD and DVD can deliver. If there are folks out there that really love music, this is the format that would get them closer to reality than we have ever heard.

The DXD to Bluray audio recordings I have done in the past, have been absolutely marvelous to the ears. For those of us that have had that audio quality taste, going back to CD just cannot, and will not do it.

As far as ripping is concerned, I am with copy protection on this one. Now that we have seen the devistation of the CD and DVD format behind ripping, it becomes impossible for any digital format to get to a point of maturity that LP has gotten to. Once you can rip it, then the freebie thought process just overwhelms the legit thought process. Let's face it, what we can get for free, we don't want to pay for.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-25-2010, 02:47 PM
i think STT will agree that part of the prob with sacd was the lack of readily available mixing/editing equipment that handled DSD sources. i think its a travesty that sony did not support the format by releasing ALL titles in hybrid format so retailers wouldnt have a problem selling their inventories.

I agree with you totally. As a person who invested heavily in SACD(DSD encoders and decoders, extremely high quality production/recording suite), Sony never provided editing and eq for the format in DSD. This meant that we had to convert our DSD stream to PCM to do all of these tasks, and that degraded the quality and resolution of the audio. Then you have to convert the degraded stream back to DSD, which was a major bummer IMO. Now to be sure, the degradation was slight, but I heard it, and it bothered me.

It also would have been helpful for Sony to provide bass management, delay and, and speaker balancing in DSD as well, to maintain the DSD stream's purity through the analog conversion in the player.

While I commend Sony for bringing the format to the public, I give them a "F" for their effort in both the post production, and consumer implementation.

SlumpBuster
11-25-2010, 05:13 PM
Since nobody has put dibs on minidisc and 8 track, go ahead and send me those.

Feanor
11-25-2010, 07:49 PM
....
It also would have been helpful for Sony to provide bass management, delay and, and speaker balancing in DSD as well, to maintain the DSD stream's purity through the analog conversion in the player.
....
Of course, none of this is a problem for Blu-ray. The Audyssey processing on my modest Onkyo receiver has impressed me a whole lot.

Unfortunately my Panasonic BRP doesn't play SACD, (nor does the Onkyo handle DSD). I'd be fine, though, if the player or the receiver converted the DSD directly to PCM to permit subsequent DSP -- rather this than omit the EQ and delay.

basite
11-26-2010, 01:54 AM
With SACD's and DVD-Audio dead are CD's going to be the best we can get?


Well, there is still vinyl...

*puts on flamesuit*

but honestly, IMO, vinyl still offers the best resolution & sound quality, but I guess not everyone agrees on that...

and SACD is definitely with one foot in it's grave already, DVD-A has been put under the ground a long time ago.
so that leaves us with Blu-Ray audio discs...
not much going to happen there, it's doomed to end the same as DVD-A, and it's much to expensive. ESPECIALLY compared to the "new rising master", streaming, or media servers, things with hard disk drives in them... "not stuck to a medium".

so to answer your question: CD's are on their way out too. Leaving you with PC stuff...


...and vinyl...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

audio amateur
11-26-2010, 02:14 AM
I think the music industry is going down...

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-26-2010, 11:33 AM
Well, there is still vinyl...

*puts on flamesuit*

but honestly, IMO, vinyl still offers the best resolution & sound quality, but I guess not everyone agrees on that...

and SACD is definitely with one foot in it's grave already, DVD-A has been put under the ground a long time ago.
so that leaves us with Blu-Ray audio discs...
not much going to happen there, it's doomed to end the same as DVD-A, and it's much to expensive. ESPECIALLY compared to the "new rising master", streaming, or media servers, things with hard disk drives in them... "not stuck to a medium".

so to answer your question: CD's are on their way out too. Leaving you with PC stuff...


...and vinyl...

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

Bert,
So much is going on with Bluray disc music, it is off your radar, and has no chance of following in the footsteps of DVD-A. There is FAR too much support for that to happen.

Streaming is doing well, but not for high resolution music. You are overselling vinyl, that is for sure. Many of us have turned the page on that medium, and there is no chance of us going back. Digital is here to stay for the masses, and vinyl will remain a niche.

Feanor
11-26-2010, 11:57 AM
Well, there is still vinyl...

*puts on flamesuit*

but honestly, IMO, vinyl still offers the best resolution & sound quality, but I guess not everyone agrees on that...

Indeed: please enter a dissenting vote. :prrr:


...
so to answer your question: CD's are on their way out too. Leaving you with PC stuff...
...

Maybe, but don't hold your breath.

hifitommy
11-26-2010, 12:02 PM
digital has almost caught up to analog in total quality. still, vinyl offers more value to those of us who will make the effort to play and maintain our LPs.

the downloading requires a learning curve at this time (as does vinyl playback for those new to it) and makes the older audiophile/music lover hesitant to buy into it. its still under development for the consumer in terms of ease of use and cost of equipment and content.

vinyl and digital lovers thrive on the used market for the bulk of their acquisitions, vinyl being more economical.

in the big cities, there is a wealth of used vinyl, much in great shape. CDs are almost always more expensive used or not. plus, used CDs are harder to peruse. used sacd and dvda titles are very rare but i have found a few at good prices.

new vinyl isnt as rare as one might expect and many times quite competitive with digital pricing. bluray players have become NEARLY ubiquitous because of the netflix phenomenon with wifi AND low pricing.

in the meantime, i am still seeking out SACDs and DVDAs as well as the inherently hi rez vinyl.

i am looking forward to bluray audio being mainstream and their cost normalizing.

poppachubby
11-26-2010, 01:00 PM
As far as ripping is concerned, I am with copy protection on this one. Now that we have seen the devistation of the CD and DVD format behind ripping, it becomes impossible for any digital format to get to a point of maturity that LP has gotten to. Once you can rip it, then the freebie thought process just overwhelms the legit thought process. Let's face it, what we can get for free, we don't want to pay for.

Good point, and I think Happy Camper had the right idea also.

The music industry toasted themselves with the release of CD, and it's ever promising mantra..."Perfect Sound Forever". Well we know now that it's far from perfect, and as mentioned, can be had for free. Woops...

If you could roll back the clock, I would bet most executives would have kept vinyl as the main format. At least this forced consumers to buy a product, and they made some money as a result. They were all toasting themselves when consumers repurchased their libraries, but then spewed when they found out about ripping. "They can what!?!..."

Today, only one person is required to buy a CD and potentially, the rest of us can have it for free. So like Terrence said, how can anything develop when there's nothing to be gained by the companies adapting these technologies.

The other issue is that digital still remains in it's infancy. Like a cat chasing it's tail, they are always looking for the next thing. Like most technologies, "improvements" are forever rolling. Perhaps BD has the disc solution for high rez or perhaps nobody cares and it dies on the vine. Hard to say.

You guys know I like vinyl. These days I buy my new or used LP and rip it to my comp in FLAC format. Yes it's only 16/44.1 but hey it sounds great and prevents me from needing to buy a digital version.

The record industry missed the boat with downloading. They thought people would want improved sound on a hard disc, turns out they want to download a file at only 128kbps.

basite
11-26-2010, 02:55 PM
Bert,
So much is going on with Bluray disc music, it is off your radar, and has no chance of following in the footsteps of DVD-A. There is FAR too much support for that to happen.

well, might very well be...
but no one actually cares except a small amount of freaks like us.
and even if they do "care", they don't know.

And by the time they care and/or know about blu ray audio discs, everyone is downloading music on the Internet.

and btw: What support? "there are much titles available out there on blu ray audio?" yeah, they were there too for DVD-A and SACD, and see where they arrived now...



Streaming is doing well, but not for high resolution music. You are overselling vinyl, that is for sure. Many of us have turned the page on that medium, and there is no chance of us going back. Digital is here to stay for the masses, and vinyl will remain a niche.

not yet, but even you might be surprised. I mean, we can stream 1080p movies over the internet without a problem, so I guess music won't be any problem at all, just wait and see...

alot of receivers, blu ray players, even dvd players, ... & all media servers have network connectivity, and applications for those are growing quickly...

This is both the "problem" and the advantage of digital. it doesn't need to be on a disc. well, maybe a hard disk, but not a disc-disc, like a blu ray disc...
why be so stuck to a medium? the masses don't want a "large collection" of discs lying around in house, and why should they? they don't care about quality, and they have everything they want on their ipod.

What you're naming with blu ray audio is not revolutionary, it's not spectacular, it's not refreshing, it's not even new. it's just yet again "something different", "just another disc that's taking up space in my living room". Most people won't even notice it (again: except us, audio nuts...).
Face it: for the masses, at the moment there are 2 options: "cd's" or "can I download it for my ipod?", and indeed, that small (but growing) niche market of vinyl nuts (I must admit: like me).

so again, I stick to my point, it's already dead.
and vinyl, even though you and many others (unfortunately) think that it's overrated: it's still here, sales have increased drastically over the years, and (this is important), to my ears (young, good, trained ears), it still sounds the most natural & "true" than all other mediums.

and to all those with the argument that "digital is nearly as good as analog now", well, it's not there yet, the day it will, I'll go digital for sure, but the day isn't here yet.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

basite
11-26-2010, 03:11 PM
As far as ripping is concerned, I am with copy protection on this one. Now that we have seen the devistation of the CD and DVD format behind ripping, it becomes impossible for any digital format to get to a point of maturity that LP has gotten to. Once you can rip it, then the freebie thought process just overwhelms the legit thought process. Let's face it, what we can get for free, we don't want to pay for.


Yes! Yes!
very true

and while I support copy protection, in this case, i'd felt ripped off...

why? I go to a shop, buy a blu ray disc album, and come home. I can play it in my blu ray player, but I cannot play it on my ipod. Now I don't own an ipod, because I don't need one, but I do own a laptop with lot's of music on it, easy, when you're working somewhere, and you want some music with you, just grab your headphones...

but the point remains: most people I know own an ipod, and others own other mp3 "and other formats" players. What would they have to do? buy the album twice? once for their blu ray player, and once more for their ipod?

I don't think so...

you could solve this by "adding a free album download", but that kinda kills the purpose of copy protection...
so no thanks...

I've found many new & old titles on vinyl that include a link & code for a free album download, "so you can enjoy your album with your mobile players"...
Great idea!
Just, totally useless on digital formats...

Keep them spinning
Bert.

Ajani
11-26-2010, 04:00 PM
As far as ripping is concerned, I am with copy protection on this one. Now that we have seen the devistation of the CD and DVD format behind ripping, it becomes impossible for any digital format to get to a point of maturity that LP has gotten to. Once you can rip it, then the freebie thought process just overwhelms the legit thought process. Let's face it, what we can get for free, we don't want to pay for.

This line of reasoning always reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons in which Homer meets a recording artist (Barry Manilow, if I'm not mistaken) and he says "I'm your number one fan, I taped all your songs off the radio!"...

The RIAA was never able to and will never be able to get every person to pay for every song they listen to... Also, despite all the RIAA's claims that piracy was killing CD sales, the sales statistics just didn't support their claims... I remember when Napster was just gaining popularity and two of my friends introduced me to it... Each of them had downloaded hundreds of songs to their computers and were telling me I was crazy for buying CDs... Here's the thing: neither of them owned more than a handful of CDs before MP3 downloading existed... They just weren't interested in spending money on albums... When it was free, they'd download with wild abandon, but when they had to pay, they'd rather do without...

The idea that all or even most digital pirates are persons who would have otherwise paid for content is nonsense... There's a MAJOR difference between what you would watch or listen to when it is free versus what you would watch or listen to if you had to pay for it...

Copy Protection is just another example of how out of touch the RIAA is with what society wants...

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-27-2010, 11:02 AM
well, might very well be...
but no one actually cares except a small amount of freaks like us.
and even if they do "care", they don't know.

And by the time they care and/or know about blu ray audio discs, everyone is downloading music on the Internet.

and btw: What support? "there are much titles available out there on blu ray audio?" yeah, they were there too for DVD-A and SACD, and see where they arrived now...

This is kind of a simplistic response(no offense). There were a multitude of reasons that DVD-A and SACD didn't succeed.

1) Only a segment of the manufacturers supported either. You had a SACD camp, and a DVD-A camp(audio war). That does not exist with Bluray, all of the manufacturers are on board for the format(no competition).

2)Complicated connections. Both DVD-A, and SACD required that you use the analog connection which required 6 cables between the player and the receiver or pre-pro. This was complicated to many folks, and that turned them off. Bluray requires one HDMI cable, and that same cable carries everything you need to explore everything about the Bluray format(i.e high rez music, video, 3D etc)

3)There is already an established familiarity with Bluray disc, that was not there with either SACD or DVD-A. The latter paved the road for multichannel music on disc, and with that people are clamoring for more music on Bluray disc.

4)Bandwidth was a problem with DVD-A, but not with SACD. Bluray disc has bandwidth to spare, one disc able to support everything from 7.1 multichannel to 2.0 channel stereo with no fold down or mix down necessary(as it was with DVD-A). It also does not require a special audio codec like SACD does. PCM audio(which is the basic wrapper for all of audio) is all that is needed, but it also supports DTS-HD Master audio and Dolby TrueHD if you receiver or pre-pro has it.

As to whether one cares about Bluray or not, the answer lies in sales. From what I have been seeing on NDP, sales of Bluray music titles are doing very well, and sometimes quite spectacular. People obviously care about it, even if some others do not.


not yet, but even you might be surprised. I mean, we can stream 1080p movies over the internet without a problem, so I guess music won't be any problem at all, just wait and see...

Let us not confuse the wrapper with the actual substance. 1080p on the internet is just the label, it is not technically 1080p. True 1080p requires no filtering whatsoever, but 1080p streams(and only Vudu and Netflix have it by the way), are heavily filtered, heavily compressed, and do not have the visual characteristics of 1080p on disc. There is no way you are going to get the same results with heavily filtered and compressed video traveling through a 10mbps pipeline compared to an unfiltered, slightly compressed video traveling through a 54mbps pipeline. It is not possible. As far as being surprised, no not really. I know the 1080p stream is just a wrapper without the substance.


alot of receivers, blu ray players, even dvd players, ... & all media servers have network connectivity, and applications for those are growing quickly...

This is both the "problem" and the advantage of digital. it doesn't need to be on a disc. well, maybe a hard disk, but not a disc-disc, like a blu ray disc...
why be so stuck to a medium? the masses don't want a "large collection" of discs lying around in house, and why should they? they don't care about quality, and they have everything they want on their ipod.

Agreed, but not everyone wants everything on their Ipod. Surveys taken just do not support your comments. When surveys are taken on ownership of the physical disc versus a digital file, the disc always wins. While streaming has become ubiquitous among the tech savvy, that does not describe the masses. While real time streaming(not storage) is easy for everyone, storage is not. Once you start storing what is streamed, the complexities mount. I am not talking about a Itunes drop to a I pod. I am talking high resolution streams to a harddrive, and to your audio system. That is a bridge the masses have not crossed yet, and not many audiophiles either. However, popping a disc loaded with high resolution music(or video) is something that even a 3 year old kid can do.


What you're naming with blu ray audio is not revolutionary, it's not spectacular, it's not refreshing, it's not even new. it's just yet again "something different", "just another disc that's taking up space in my living room". Most people won't even notice it (again: except us, audio nuts...).
Face it: for the masses, at the moment there are 2 options: "cd's" or "can I download it for my ipod?", and indeed, that small (but growing) niche market of vinyl nuts (I must admit: like me).

Bert, if it is not revolutionary, can you name another format that can store 1080p film images, 24/192khz audio(and every other variation as well) 3D, and 4K images all on the same disc? Can you name another consumer disc format with 50GB of storage with the ability to grow to 200GB and playable on today's player? While you may downplay Bluray's significance, quite a few others do not. Would you not agree that your perspective is yours, but not everyones?


so again, I stick to my point, it's already dead.
and vinyl, even though you and many others (unfortunately) think that it's overrated: it's still here, sales have increased drastically over the years, and (this is important), to my ears (young, good, trained ears), it still sounds the most natural & "true" than all other mediums.

A format that is growing over 100% year over year is not dead, and not even close to it. Vinyl is not growing that fast, and probably never will. Yes sales have increased drastically, but not nowhere near 100% year over year, so it is still a VERY small niche format. Have you listened to every digital format out there? It would appear not based on your comments.


and to all those with the argument that "digital is nearly as good as analog now", well, it's not there yet, the day it will, I'll go digital for sure, but the day isn't here yet.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

I hate to bust your bubble Bert, but digital audio long surpassed what any analog format could do quality wise, and technically as well. 24/192khz surpasses what any analog system can deliver in terms of resolution and quality. DXD wipes analog off the face of the earth. If you have heard any music at 24/192khz and still think vinyl sounds better, then your young hearing is not all that trained. As a person who has actually compared analog and various resolutions of digital in a studio environment with the same recording, I can tell you the only thing vinyl or analog has going for it is a bunch of emotions based on familiarness, and nothing more than that.

What is funny to me is that all of these analog versus digital comparison have been done with the highest resolution of analog, versus the lowest of digital. How fair is that? When you have done a comparison of the same recording in analog(vinyl if you will)versus 24/192khz digital or 24/952.4khz DXD digital files then come talk to me. But if you are using CD as a source of the comparison, you have not heard all digital can deliver, and the comparison isn't all that equal.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-27-2010, 11:12 AM
This line of reasoning always reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons in which Homer meets a recording artist (Barry Manilow, if I'm not mistaken) and he says "I'm your number one fan, I taped all your songs off the radio!"...

The RIAA was never able to and will never be able to get every person to pay for every song they listen to... Also, despite all the RIAA's claims that piracy was killing CD sales, the sales statistics just didn't support their claims... I remember when Napster was just gaining popularity and two of my friends introduced me to it... Each of them had downloaded hundreds of songs to their computers and were telling me I was crazy for buying CDs... Here's the thing: neither of them owned more than a handful of CDs before MP3 downloading existed... They just weren't interested in spending money on albums... When it was free, they'd download with wild abandon, but when they had to pay, they'd rather do without...

This is exactly why copy protection is needed, and exactly what I have stated. There is this stupid belief that we can get everything for free, and it will keep coming. If this mentality was to become standard fare, then it would become impossible to continue recording and distributing music period. Then there would be nothing left to distribute for free, as there would be no reason for a artist to write their music, or a studio to go through the expense of recording it and distributing it.


The idea that all or even most digital pirates are persons who would have otherwise paid for content is nonsense... There's a MAJOR difference between what you would watch or listen to when it is free versus what you would watch or listen to if you had to pay for it...

Copy Protection is just another example of how out of touch the RIAA is with what society wants...

The RIAA cannot give society what it wants, or everyone would go out of business and there would be no product. It is just that simple. If society got what it wanted, no commerce would exist. If you were an artists that worked hard to create a product, would you just give it away for free? No way in hell you would. If you were a studio that paid more than a million dollars to record and distribute a product, would you distribute it for free? Hell no you wouldn't, you would go bankrupt after the first product was released. What society wants is unrealistic and just plain impossible.

Feanor
11-27-2010, 01:06 PM
...

The RIAA was never able to and will never be able to get every person to pay for every song they listen to... Also, despite all the RIAA's claims that piracy was killing CD sales, the sales statistics just didn't support their claims... I remember when Napster was just gaining popularity and two of my friends introduced me to it... Each of them had downloaded hundreds of songs to their computers and were telling me I was crazy for buying CDs... Here's the thing: neither of them owned more than a handful of CDs before MP3 downloading existed... They just weren't interested in spending money on albums... When it was free, they'd download with wild abandon, but when they had to pay, they'd rather do without...

The idea that all or even most digital pirates are persons who would have otherwise paid for content is nonsense... There's a MAJOR difference between what you would watch or listen to when it is free versus what you would watch or listen to if you had to pay for it...
... I'm rather torn on this subject. Yes, I agree with Ajani that the position of RIAA and similar bodies that industry revenue loss = no.of pirated copies X retail price is totally bogus.

On the other hand I'm with STtT that it's a proven economic fact that goods and service become available when and only when people in general are willing to pay for them.

Part of the problem is that the recording industry is pricing their download copies 'way too high. IMO, there would be a lot less piracy of songs if they were, say, 20 cents a download instead of a buck. What's more, it's likely their total revenue would actually increase -- in microeconomic terms, the demand is a lot more flexible than they assume, especially when you take into consideration non-NA and European countries where $1 is still a whole lot of money.

Ajani
11-27-2010, 01:56 PM
This is exactly why copy protection is needed, and exactly what I have stated. There is this stupid belief that we can get everything for free, and it will keep coming. If this mentality was to become standard fare, then it would become impossible to continue recording and distributing music period. Then there would be nothing left to distribute for free, as there would be no reason for a artist to write their music, or a studio to go through the expense of recording it and distributing it.



The RIAA cannot give society what it wants, or everyone would go out of business and there would be no product. It is just that simple. If society got what it wanted, no commerce would exist. If you were an artists that worked hard to create a product, would you just give it away for free? No way in hell you would. If you were a studio that paid more than a million dollars to record and distribute a product, would you distribute it for free? Hell no you wouldn't, you would go bankrupt after the first product was released. What society wants is unrealistic and just plain impossible.

Tell that to Google... The problem remains that the RIAA is unwilling to get with the times... The typical approach to pricing is the issue... Also the RIAA is just plain greedy and that is a major part of the problem... The pricing for CDs, and in more recent times downloads, has always been a joke... There has never been a real justification for why the prices for albums are so high... So the RIAA geniuses think that high prices and trying to prosecute every pirate is the answer... Good luck with that... Younger generations get that money can be made without charging directly for a service... Just check out the Vloggers on youtube... I would suggest going to youtube and looking up Philip DeFranco or Ray William Johnson, then you'll see persons making money by giving their content away for free... Also look at what Google does...

Even if the RIAA doesn't want to be as radical as Google and distribute for free (which doesn't mean not making loads of money BTW), they should at least consider charging a sensible price for downloads/unlimited streaming... Customers will pay if the price isn't ridiculous...

Ajani
11-27-2010, 01:59 PM
I'm rather torn on this subject. Yes, I agree with Ajani that the position of RIAA and similar bodies that industry revenue loss = no.of pirated copies X retail price is totally bogus.

On the other hand I'm with STtT that it's a proven economic fact that goods and service become available when and only when people in general are willing to pay for them.

Part of the problem is that the recording industry is pricing their download copies 'way too high. IMO, there would be a lot less piracy of songs were, say, 20 cents a download instead of a buck. What's more, it's likely their total revenue would actually increase -- in microeconomic terms, the demand is a lot more flexible than they assume, especially when you take into consideration non-NA and European countries where $1 is still a whole lot of money.

Here's the thing: I have never suggested just giving away content out of the goodness of your heart... The RIAA just needs to adjust their revenue model and they could still make a killing by "giving away" content (see my previous post to Sir T on Google and Youtube Vloggers)... Or at least, as you rightly suggest, charging a reasonable price...

basite
11-27-2010, 03:03 PM
Bert, if it is not revolutionary, can you name another format that can store 1080p film images, 24/192khz audio(and every other variation as well) 3D, and 4K images all on the same disc? Can you name another consumer disc format with 50GB of storage with the ability to grow to 200GB and playable on today's player? While you may downplay Bluray's significance, quite a few others do not. Would you not agree that your perspective is yours, but not everyones?


A hard disk drive...

and about the comment regarding "simplicity of use"....

I don't know how old your children, or grandchildren are, if you even have any, but I've seen more than enough 3 and 4 year olds working with simple versions of a pc, very similar to what one can find on a media center. I've seen kids too young to be able to properly write walking around with cellphones and MP3 players, perfectly being able to use them, and if they can do that, it's only a tiny step to media servers & centers.

and on the other end, i've seen and read more than enough stories & experiences from people who's kids have ruined their cd/blu-ray/DVD/VHS/whatever because they simply wouldn't understand that the darned thing was not a toaster.



And while I still disagree about blu ray audio being the next big thing: I most certainly didn't disagree about the fact that it was better than a cd. as a disc format, blu ray is most certainly appealing.

basite
11-27-2010, 03:11 PM
This is exactly why copy protection is needed, and exactly what I have stated. There is this stupid belief that we can get everything for free, and it will keep coming.


while it is most certainly necessary to lower piracy, copy protection is NOT the way to do it IMHO.

There is not a single copy protection that hasn't been cracked yet, and there probably won't be any, any time soon, without making things so complicated people won't even bother buying albums or movies anymore.

Right now, copy protection is only pissing off the fair & honest buyers trying to put their latest album on their pc or ipod...

thekid
11-27-2010, 03:25 PM
Here's the thing: I have never suggested just giving away content out of the goodness of your heart... The RIAA just needs to adjust their revenue model and they could still make a killing by "giving away" content

I don't have a dog in the fight regarding the format discussion going on here but AJ does make an interesting point regarding pricing.

I am curious if the model for developing and sustaining bands has changed dramatically enough that the costs to the music companies are not what they were say 30-40 years ago. As I have always understood it back in the day the music company put alot of money out up front finding, developing and promoting the artist. Now it would seem to me that the internet and technology has taken alot of the cost of that out of equation. At the same time radio is no longer a viable option for music companies to introduce new talent and music videos add a cost dimension. Is the net result of these changes substantial enough to lower cost-raise cost or have no affect on cost?

I do know that back in the day the record stores used to have "cut-out" bins where alot of new artist or relative unknowns would end up at half to a third of the cost of other LP's. I am really not aware of a similar situation with CD's or other content and maybe that is somewhat AJ's point. People would often "discover" someone in the "cut-out bin" and then go out and start buying the artists newer stuff at the higher price point. I guess you could argue that iTunes and similar venues somewhat meets that model but I am not sure it is quite the same.

hifitommy
11-27-2010, 04:25 PM
not only has the internet made things easier for all, the cost of producing the physical product dropped dramatically with the change to cd from vinyl which is fraught with physical problems such as cutting master acetates. ad infinitum.

dont get me wrong, i LOVE vinyl and still buy new releases of such (like the boz scaggs 'speak low' jazz release). CDs are dramatically cheaper to put out and now even less money ends up in the hands of the artist.

perhaps the impending death of sacd has more to do with the financial risks to be taken by the record companies.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-27-2010, 05:46 PM
Not trying to address each individual point, but just bringing reality into the picture. I do not think anyone on this thread has any idea of how much money it takes to bring a album to the public. It is far more than it used to be, and it is not because a record company CEO makes gazillions of dollars either. I think everyone strongly underestimates the cost of advertising over multiple platforms, distibution costs, liscensing costs, middle man costs, and various other costs in marketing a product.

Ajani says this;

The RIAA just needs to adjust their revenue model and they could still make a killing by "giving away" content (see my previous post to Sir T on Google and Youtube Vloggers)... Or at least, as you rightly suggest, charging a reasonable price...

Here is my response to that: Giving away content does not equal a financial killing, and it can never in a market based economy. When the cost of producing and distributing an album fall, then it can address the fact that consumers want the product for less. At this point the pendulum falls for the latter far more than the former. While studio time costs have dropped(quite a few albums are home recording studio based), the sheer numbers of advertising outlets have not, which means in costs more to advertise the product than it did pre internet. Artists demands also keep increasing which keep costs up. Touring costs have increased, as has mastering costs. While manufacturing costs have dropped, licensing and copyright costs have dramatically increased. There is nothing in a market driven model that has decreased, so giving your product away pretty much guarantees bankruptcy if you don't scale your costs with market driven production costs.

Google and Youtube products are mostly non monetized products. They are loss leaders to Google's advertising arm, which pretty much sums up retail at this moment. You use a lesser value product(at least in your opinion) to spur revenue in your more lucrative products, which with google is their ad revenue. This idea devalues audio and video in favor of advertisement, which is a detriment to the audio and video producer.

Ajani says this:


The pricing for CDs, and in more recent times downloads, has always been a joke... There has never been a real justification for why the prices for albums are so high...

Downloading albums are high basically because the market is small. To justify the costs of licensing, royalties, distribution, and profit in a market driven economy justifies the cost. None of these has gotten cheaper with digital distribution, it has gotten more complex and expensive. While it has gotten cheaper to distribute over is physical distribution(CD, DVD's and Blurays) because that model is mature, stable, and predictable in some ways. Digital distribution is not. Once the digital file is sold over the internet, its distribution predictability becomes nil, and that drives up the cost of the file as a result of copy protection, terms of usage, and various other complexities that most do not think of. Also the apparent value of the product is diminished with digital distribution, which does not coincide with the cost of production, and why film and music concerns were too slow with dealing with digital distribution. The question becomes how can I produce a product with mass appeal, but with costs that are constrained by a consumers value beliefs. This is an impossible equation to equalize today.

To Bert in response to this question, and his response.

can you name another format that can store 1080p film images, 24/192khz audio(and every other variation as well) 3D, and 4K images all on the same disc?

Answer from Bert:


A hard disk drive..

Upon first blush you are correct. However a deeper analysis would reveal that once you start storing 50GB from a single source, the financial feasibility drops precipitously. First the data rate of transmission is a problem with USB 2.0. Right now the typical data transfer speed of USB 2.0 is about 18mbps with MAC computers, and 33mbps with windows based PC's. With overhead, that drives the speed lower for transfer of the primary data. Bluray movies encode over a very wide rate, some as low as 15mbps, to as high as 54-60mbps for 3D, and that includes the lossless tracks. While the data storage is not a problem in this respect, the bandwidth to get the storage from the drive to the player is a big issue, and fails on close examination.

Second issue, long term reliability. We all know that drives will fail, which is why backup drives are required. When you look at player failure versus drive failure, drive failure is more of an issue. When you talking about replacement, drive once again would lose in the face of the wide variety of Bluray players costs, versus the drive prices. We haven't even talked about the media players costs which are required in the equation, as you have to get the contents from the drive to the television or audio system. There is no direct access here like there is with a Bluray player.

Thirdly, USB protocol leaves no room for copy protection, and let's face it, the studio require it on every format that releases movies. You are not going to get around that obstacle period. You may be able to rip DVD's(their protection was compromised long ago) but nobody has yet been able to widely defeat Bluray copy protection, which why you do not see true 1080p based streams all over the net(most have been heavily compressed for easier transfer).

To answer Bert assertion that the average person is pissed off by copy protection, I would say this- show me. Most users just put the disc in the player, and press play. They are not trying to store BR content. Since nobody has cracked BD+, or BD watermark(don't think they have tried) and neither was SACD copy protection, then your assertion that all copy protection has been cracked is inaccurate.

To answer thekid response.

The cost of production for music has largely dropped overall, even in the face of higher mastering costs(you have to master over far more platforms than you use to). The use of home studios has cut recording costs(and quality IMO), but the costs of marketing over far more platforms has increased. So one can argue for cost remaining the same for production, as well as price of the end product. It does not support price reduction without a penalty to profit - which reduces the amount of product that can be put in the pipeline.

Bert, nothing is stopping anyone from putting an vinyl based album on their PC, Poppachubby does it. There are no copy protections on vinyl. There is nothing stopping anyone from ripping CD's to their hard drives, there is no copy protection on it either. Neither one of these costs as much as a movie in terms of marketing, production and post production costs(they don't even come close), which is why copy protection exists on video based mediums. If one can understand the logic of that, it goes a long way to explaining why copy protection exists.

Lastly, one driving point that everyone seems to omit from their logic is that we live in free market societies. That includes all faucets of the music and movie making chain. Once a movie or music becomes a freeby, all of those costs turn into non monetized debts. This assuredly means that commercialization comes to a halt, and production of the product does as well. Reduced price means reduced budgets, which always means reduced quality of the end product. All one has to do is look at products originating from China to see that dynamic.

Ajani
11-27-2010, 06:06 PM
Downloading albums are high basically because the market is small.

And the reverse argument is just as (if not more) logical: the market is small because the prices are high... drop the prices and market share will increase substantially...


To justify the costs of licensing, royalties, distribution, and profit in a market driven economy justifies the cost. None of these has gotten cheaper with digital distribution, it has gotten more complex and expensive. While it has gotten cheaper to distribute over is physical distribution(CD, DVD's and Blurays) because that model is mature, stable, and predictable in some ways. Digital distribution is not. Once the digital file is sold over the internet, its distribution predictability becomes nil, and that drives up the cost of the file as a result of copy protection, terms of usage, and various other complexities that most do not think of. Also the apparent value of the product is diminished with digital distribution, which does not coincide with the cost of production, and why film and music concerns were too slow with dealing with digital distribution. The question becomes how can I produce a product with mass appeal, but with costs that are constrained by a consumers value beliefs. This is an impossible equation to equalize today.

So essentially DRM and other related nonsense, that the RIAA has imposed on itself and the consumer, is what drives up the cost of downloads?

This is why I think the recording industry needs to get fresh eyes to look at the situation and devise a business model for modern times...

Trying to revert things to how they were in the past can never work and just waiting for someone else to implement change, is a dangerous business strategy...

What happens if more artists take a Prince like approach of delivering content direct to the consumer on the internet? Does the RIAA wait until the number of artists bypassing traditional labels, is large enough to threaten it's business, before taking action?

Or maybe they should wait until Google or Apple launches an "internet label" and starts signing major artists...

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-27-2010, 07:14 PM
And the reverse argument is just as (if not more) logical: the market is small because the prices are high... drop the prices and market share will increase substantially...

No, not correct. The market is small because it is not mature market, and all of the pathways of adoption have not been explored or implemented. The prices of hardware has dropped dramatically(external hard drives are everywhere, and the per GB costs have dropped substantially) but high quality media streaming devices remain relatively high, at least those marketed by audio manufacturers. Maybe that is what has kept consumers away from downloads. You have to get past the hardware implementation to get to the software, and right now the streaming hardware prices are too high.




So essentially DRM and other related nonsense, that the RIAA has imposed on itself and the consumer, is what drives up the cost of downloads?

Sorry Ajani, the RIAA did not imposed that on themselves, the market imposed it upon them. DRM is necessary to keep the value of the end product in scale with the costs of production and distribution(and its associated costs as well). Copyright, liscensing and royalty costs are not decided by the RIAA, they are decided by BMG and ASCAP. Royalties are typically 10-25% of the total cost of the product, and that goes to the artists or the record companies, whichever has the rights to the music. Licensing also takes up a chunk, and has become more expensive as the amount of platforms has increased. None of these costs have been implemented by the RIAA. RIAA is not a liscensing arm of music, it is just the music industry version of the police department. Blaming them for everything completely misses the point.


This is why I think the recording industry needs to get fresh eyes to look at the situation and devise a business model for modern times...

They already have, its called the free market. When the free market drives prices down(segment maturity) that is when they fall. All one has to do is look at DVD and Bluray for that example.


Trying to revert things to how they were in the past can never work and just waiting for someone else to implement change, is a dangerous business strategy...

Nobody can do that now, the market has shifted too much for that. You need to check your perspective no how the market works from both sides of the fence, not just one side. A consumer perspective only tells one third of the equation. Understanding production, and distribution(the two thirds you continually leave out) goes a long way to understanding why things cost as much as they do.


What happens if more artists take a Prince like approach of delivering content direct to the consumer on the internet? Does the RIAA wait until the number of artists bypassing traditional labels, is large enough to threaten it's business, before taking action?

The RIAA does not cover artists that go their own way, they are on their own at that point. The unfortunate part of going your own is that you as the artists have to covered all of the costs to do so, which leaves them on the line if the product does not do well. The disadvantage of going it alone means that the artist pays all of the cost for production, marketing and distribution alone. No upfront payments like they usually get from a record company. That is one of the complaints from Prince. So your financial exposure is quite high, and if you lose, you lose big, not the record company.


Or maybe they should wait until Google or Apple launches an "internet label" and starts signing major artists...

The fact they haven't already ought to tell you a lot. Using the download model for distribution, you would never be able to pay the upfront costs of producing the product, there just isn't enough profit generated by the completed digital files. Now when downloading can produce the huge upfront costs(and the associated back-door profits), then it is feasible for both Apple and Google to get on that side of the business. Itunes is a loss leader for Apple to sell Ipods, they have no interest in the value of the audio file itself. Google uses Youtube to drive ad sales, not to generate profits. They don't value the videos on their site, they value the income it generates from ads. Neither one of these companies business model drive video or audio profits, and they shouldn't either, that is not their business.

Ajani
11-27-2010, 07:42 PM
No, not correct. The market is small because it is not mature market, and all of the pathways of adoption have not been explored or implemented. The prices of hardware has dropped dramatically(external hard drives are everywhere, and the per GB costs have dropped substantially) but high quality media streaming devices remain relatively high, at least those marketed by audio manufacturers. Maybe that is what has kept consumers away from downloads. You have to get past the hardware implementation to get to the software, and right now the streaming hardware prices are too high.

What? So MP3 players aren't cheap like dirt and widely used? Clearly there is more than enough hardware to support the market... Audiophile streamers are a small and relatively insignificant portion of the market... So you are incorrect in trying to blame hardware for the market share... the issue is that the price of downloads is too high...


Sorry Ajani, the RIAA did not imposed that on themselves, the market imposed it upon them. DRM is necessary to keep the value of the end product in scale with the costs of production and distribution(and its associated costs as well). Copyright, liscensing and royalty costs are not decided by the RIAA, they are decided by BMG and ASCAP. Royalties are typically 10-25% of the total cost of the product, and that goes to the artists or the record companies, whichever has the rights to the music. Licensing also takes up a chunk, and has become more expensive as the amount of platforms has increased. None of these costs have been implemented by the RIAA. RIAA is not a liscensing arm of music, it is just the music industry version of the police department. Blaming them for everything completely misses the point.

Fine, I'll use the term "Music Industry" rather than RIAA... So the Music Industry imposed DRM and other such nonsense on itself... Low prices would have negated the need to implement DRM in the first place... The Music Industry decided that DRM was the solution to the problem, not the "market"...

basite
11-28-2010, 03:22 AM
can you name another format that can store 1080p film images, 24/192khz audio(and every other variation as well) 3D, and 4K images all on the same disc?

Upon first blush you are correct. However a deeper analysis would reveal that once you start storing 50GB from a single source, the financial feasibility drops precipitously. First the data rate of transmission is a problem with USB 2.0. Right now the typical data transfer speed of USB 2.0 is about 18mbps with MAC computers, and 33mbps with windows based PC's. With overhead, that drives the speed lower for transfer of the primary data. Bluray movies encode over a very wide rate, some as low as 15mbps, to as high as 54-60mbps for 3D, and that includes the lossless tracks. While the data storage is not a problem in this respect, the bandwidth to get the storage from the drive to the player is a big issue, and fails on close examination.

that is, of course if you only look at usb... smart, but these days we have esata for connecting HDD's...
reaching speeds much higher than a blu ray player can achieve.

price of a HDD: these days, you have a 1TB drive for around €50, a 2TB drive for around 80, respectively being able to store 200 and 400 blu ray discs without any compression at all. any somewhat modern pc can act as a media center giving you a gazillion more options than your blu ray player will ever give you. I'd be happy to pay a €100 more for that.

Second issue, long term reliability. We all know that drives will fail, which is why backup drives are required. When you look at player failure versus drive failure, drive failure is more of an issue. When you talking about replacement, drive once again would lose in the face of the wide variety of Bluray players costs, versus the drive prices. We haven't even talked about the media players costs which are required in the equation, as you have to get the contents from the drive to the television or audio system. There is no direct access here like there is with a Bluray player.

reliability: "HDD's FAIL" yeah yeah, so do cars, and pretty much everything else. And honestly, asking your three year old to "pop in the disc" (see your previous response), won't exactly give the disc a long life term too. Because that's a problem with discs: scratch them, and they fail. And us audio&videophiles might respect their gear & software, but the average man might not. And then, The oldest HDD in house here is about 10 years old, still working just like it did back then.


Thirdly, USB protocol leaves no room for copy protection, and let's face it, the studio require it on every format that releases movies. You are not going to get around that obstacle period. You may be able to rip DVD's(their protection was compromised long ago) but nobody has yet been able to widely defeat Bluray copy protection, which why you do not see true 1080p based streams all over the net(most have been heavily compressed for easier transfer).

that's a problem, yes, but seeing a movie on a hard disk drive, you can see it as a bit of software (well, you could make it like that), and software opens new possibilities for copy protection.

To answer Bert assertion that the average person is pissed off by copy protection, I would say this- show me. Most users just put the disc in the player, and press play. They are not trying to store BR content. Since nobody has cracked BD+, or BD watermark(don't think they have tried) and neither was SACD copy protection, then your assertion that all copy protection has been cracked is inaccurate.

you're missing my point here.

if I buy a cd today, i put my disc in my player and press play. After that, I have to go to work, I rip the cd and put it on my ipod, so I can have my music with me.

tomorrow, I buy a BR AUDIO disc, I come home and put the disc in my player, I press play. After that, I still have to go to work, and I STILL WANT MY MUSIC WITH ME. now I cannot take my br player with me and go to work like that. SO I want the music on my ipod. AND I CAN'T do that wit BR, unless, I'm downloading the content illegally, because I'm not going to pay twice for the same album, oh no I won't, you wouldn't either.

see?


and your comment on "copying" vinyl is just plain wrong. you're not copying it, you're recording it, and for average joe, with serious quality loss. If you were to use that method, you'd be able to "copy" everything, INCLUDING blu ray, even if the "copy protection" consisted out of 3 tall men with sunglasses, a black suit, and some serious firepower, because they wouldn't even know you're copying stuff...

From your point of view of "copy protection" you want on BR, vinyl is still the only format that has not been "cracked", and copied. Simply because it is not possible, it has a "physical copy protection", so to speak. "interpretations" of that is often found with more expensive software for PC's, which use a usb dongle, which you have to plug in, before the program works. You cannot simulate this physical USB dongle, nor can you download it.

but, doing that with BR discs, would result in pure chaos. not only does it make playing a movie much more complicated, but the darned things are so small and easy to lose.

and just like you say "copy protection" on BR discs hasn't been widely cracked yet, this is, like all digital formats in the past, just a matter of time before this too becomes "available" for the masses.

So, in the end: copy protection, is it REALLY necessary: Absolutely YES.
Does it help in the long term: No, because eventually people will find a way around it.

Regards,
Bert.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-28-2010, 08:12 AM
What? So MP3 players aren't cheap like dirt and widely used? Clearly there is more than enough hardware to support the market... Audiophile streamers are a small and relatively insignificant portion of the market... So you are incorrect in trying to blame hardware for the market share... the issue is that the price of downloads is too high...

I thought we were talking about high resolution audio, not low resolution audio. If we are talking MP3, then I have no comment on the price or players. I am not interested in discussing that at all.



Fine, I'll use the term "Music Industry" rather than RIAA... So the Music Industry imposed DRM and other such nonsense on itself... Low prices would have negated the need to implement DRM in the first place... The Music Industry decided that DRM was the solution to the problem, not the "market"...

What is a low price? How can you define that without knowing the cost of production and marketing? Have you ever recorded and album and had to release it? Have you ever incurred the cost of marketing and distribution? Probably not, hence why you think folks can just offer a product for a "low price".

Low price has never deterred piracy. A single song costs 69 -99 cents on Itunes, but you still have people trading them on peer to peer networks. So what do we do, just give away our tunes for free? Do we just swallow the costs of recording, marketing and distribution, then practically give away the song for free just to curb piracy? That does not make good business sense at all. DRM is here to protect the value of the product, if even for a short window of time. There is a balance that must be struck here, and since you are not familiar with the costs of production, you are not going to find that balance with a diffusive couple of words like "low price".

Feanor
11-28-2010, 08:49 AM
For a start, I say we owe a debt to Sir T who is willing to share is professional knowledge and insight with us. Nevertheless there are a few points where, just maybe, Sir T is burdened with conventional "insider" thinking.


...
Giving away content does not equal a financial killing, and it can never in a market based economy. When the cost of producing and distributing an album fall, then it can address the fact that consumers want the product for less. At this point the pendulum falls for the latter far more than the former. While studio time costs have dropped, (quite a few albums are home recording studio based), the sheer numbers of advertising outlets have not, which means it costs more to advertise the product than it did pre internet. Artists demands also keep increasing which keep costs up. Touring costs have increased, as has mastering costs. While manufacturing costs have dropped, licensing and copyright costs have dramatically increased. There is nothing in a market driven model that has decreased, so giving your product away pretty much guarantees bankruptcy if you don't scale your costs with market driven production costs.
...
Interesting points. As for advertising, it isn't an inherent production cost; you spend just and only as much as you thing you need to to sell product at a profit.

Licensing & copyright costs may well have risen: Aye, there's the rub.

Artists demanding more? Really? Well, some artists no doubt. Others are just glad for any exposure.


...
Downloading albums are high basically because the market is small. To justify the costs of licensing, royalties, distribution, and profit in a market driven economy justifies the cost. None of these has gotten cheaper with digital distribution, it has gotten more complex and expensive. While it has gotten cheaper to distribute over is physical distribution, (CD, DVD's and Blurays) because that model is mature, stable, and predictable in some ways. Digital distribution is not. Once the digital file is sold over the internet, its distribution predictability becomes nil, and that drives up the cost of the file as a result of copy protection, terms of usage, and various other complexities that most do not think of. Also the apparent value of the product is diminished with digital distribution, which does not coincide with the cost of production, and why film and music concerns were too slow with dealing with digital distribution. The question becomes how can I produce a product with mass appeal, but with costs that are constrained by a consumers value beliefs. This is an impossible equation to equalize today.
....
Let me propose that downloading is "small" because prices are high -- like I said earlier, the alternate theory may well apply which is that consumer demand is much more flexible than insiders presume and the lower prices would boost demand to the point where revenues would actually be higher.

It's pure balderdash that digital distribute is more expensive than physical -- this is assertion is just as outrageous in fact as it seems on the face of it. If the value of the product is diminished in the eye of the consumer, it is for the intuitive and valid reason the digital distribution is cheaper.

... Or it ought to be. If iTunes can't make a profit selling songs at $1 per, that's corporate incompetence. We had this out a few weeks ago. Per unit distribution cost appears to be under 8 cents a song; it's the exorbitant licensing that accounts for most of the all the rest, possibly excepting advertising ... about which see the comment above.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-28-2010, 09:58 AM
that is, of course if you only look at usb... smart, but these days we have esata for connecting HDD's...
reaching speeds much higher than a blu ray player can achieve.

price of a HDD: these days, you have a 1TB drive for around €50, a 2TB drive for around 80, respectively being able to store 200 and 400 blu ray discs without any compression at all. any somewhat modern pc can act as a media center giving you a gazillion more options than your blu ray player will ever give you. I'd be happy to pay a €100 more for that.

I am very familar with ESATA, that is now my drives are connected to my media center. Once again, what is easy for you and I, is not easy for average joe.If it was, they would be doing it already. It is certainly easier for somebody to rent or buy a disc, pop it in the player, and press play than it is to manage a media center and several terabyte hard drives.


reliability: "HDD's FAIL" yeah yeah, so do cars, and pretty much everything else. And honestly, asking your three year old to "pop in the disc" (see your previous response), won't exactly give the disc a long life term too. Because that's a problem with discs: scratch them, and they fail. And us audio&videophiles might respect their gear & software, but the average man might not. And then, The oldest HDD in house here is about 10 years old, still working just like it did back then.

When my kids were three, they could load a laser disc into the player, and press play. Training is a wonderful thing. I still have those disc, so every kid is not clumsy and clueless.

Not trying to be disrespectful, but you comments are BS. I have had two drives fail, and I still have the discs just as pristine as the day I bought them. Maybe you haven't heard about the durabiltiy of the Bluray disc. There is nothing a kid can do to make the disc unplayable. Check out this demo to see how tough the disc is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxyiAk3AzN0&feature=related

Here is another with a pretty scratched up disc, and guess what, it still plays!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1un6hXV2H0s&feature=related

So much for the scratch argument!


that's a problem, yes, but seeing a movie on a hard disk drive, you can see it as a bit of software (well, you could make it like that), and software opens new possibilities for copy protection.

There is no way I would call a hard drive software. The drive can fail(and will), but you can scratch and damage a Bluray disc, and it will still play. Why reinvent the copy protection wheel when the one if place is already working? Doesn't make much sense to me.


if I buy a cd today, i put my disc in my player and press play. After that, I have to go to work, I rip the cd and put it on my ipod, so I can have my music with me.

tomorrow, I buy a BR AUDIO disc, I come home and put the disc in my player, I press play. After that, I still have to go to work, and I STILL WANT MY MUSIC WITH ME. now I cannot take my br player with me and go to work like that. SO I want the music on my ipod. AND I CAN'T do that wit BR, unless, I'm downloading the content illegally, because I'm not going to pay twice for the same album, oh no I won't, you wouldn't either.
see?

Wow, you have not been keeping up little brother. You can take your Bluray music with you, I do all of the time. Let me introduce you to the Bluray portable player.

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMP-B15-Portable-Blu-ray-Player/dp/B001VYZVBC

While it is not as small as a Ipod, it does give you portability, and you can watch Bluray movies on it to boot. Try that with a Ipod! It is lightweight(only 2.4lbs with the battery) which means you can pop it over your shoulder in its carrier and be on your way. I can play all of my high resolution music discs on it(try that with an Ipod) while on the go.


and your comment on "copying" vinyl is just plain wrong. you're not copying it, you're recording it, and for average joe, with serious quality loss. If you were to use that method, you'd be able to "copy" everything, INCLUDING blu ray, even if the "copy protection"

Ummm, no Bert, you are copying an already recorded album. Yes it is degraded, but no more so than a MP3 file or the files you get from Itunes. And no, you cannot copy a Bluray disc that way. You may be able to get it on the drive, but if you try and play it back, it is a no go. The BD+ and BD watermark will look for the handshake protocols, and if they are not there, it will not play.


From your point of view of "copy protection" you want on BR, vinyl is still the only format that has not been "cracked", and copied. Simply because it is not possible, it has a "physical copy protection", so to speak.

It is possible. You can copy the album with a 24/192khz bit and sample rate, and it will capture all that is on that vinyl easily. My Sound Devices Model 722 is perfect for the job.
The file will be large, but it will have all that is in the grooves on the file. So it is not necessary to crack anything with vinyl, I can copy it with all of its resolution intact. I cannot do that with BR.


and just like you say "copy protection" on BR discs hasn't been widely cracked yet, this is, like all digital formats in the past, just a matter of time before this too becomes "available" for the masses.

Fortunately for BD+ and BD watermark it is not a static copy protection like CSS on DVD, or any other copy protection used in the past. It can be altered on the fly, just ask Slysoft about that. They have been trying for four years to crack BD+, and when they thought they figured it out, the BDA changed the code. Each time this little merry go round happens, Slysoft has to start all over again. This has happened at least twice already, and I have heard nothing more about it since. Cracking BD+ takes a lot of work(as Slysoft has found), and it is a very expensive proposition(as Slysoft has found out), and I have not heard any other reports of it being cracked since 2008. So it will be quite a while until it becomes "available" for the masses. I wouldn't hold my breath in the meantime.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-28-2010, 10:41 AM
For a start, I say we owe a debt to Sir T who is willing to share is professional knowledge and insight with us. Nevertheless there are a few points where, just maybe, Sir T is burdened with conventional "insider" thinking.

This is possible, I am not perfect you know!



Interesting points. As for advertising, it isn't an inherent production cost; you spend just and only as much as you thing you need to to sell product at a profit.

Licensing & copyright costs may well have risen: Aye, there's the rub.

Artists demanding more? Really? Well, some artists no doubt. Others are just glad for any exposure.

Actually Feanor, advertising is an inherent production cost. You cannot expect any sales if you don't advertise. These days with the hype and chatter being so high, advertising is a must, and it is a must over several platforms that didn't exist just five years ago(facebook, my space etc).

Some are glad for the exposure, but a record company is not usually supporting those acts, at least not a large one with the cash to promote a group. Right now, the little guys are not driving the market, they are leaving it.



Let me propose that downloading is "small" because prices are high -- like I said earlier, the alternate theory may well apply which is that consumer demand is much more flexible than insiders presume and the lower prices would boost demand to the point where revenues would actually be higher.

Once again, you have to weigh production costs against this "lower price" concept you guys are promoting. Since very few people outside of the recording industry know exactly how much it cost to produce an album, then they need to learn that before promoting this "lower cost" concept. What is the use of a lower cost if it cannot cover expenses? What is the use of the higher demand when the low cost does not recover expenses. That is the rub we are facing right now.


It's pure balderdash that digital distribute is more expensive than physical -- this is assertion is just as outrageous in fact as it seems on the face of it. If the value of the product is diminished in the eye of the consumer, it is for the intuitive and valid reason the digital distribution is cheaper.

I don't know Feanor. Physical distribution has been going on a very long time. There have been many efficiencies figured out over those years. There is a huge infrastructure in place already. Digital downloads are a relatively new concept, and a lot of figuring out still has to take place. One thing is certain, the right balance has not been struck between the cost of production, and the price of the file being sold. That is a new world indeed.


... Or it ought to be. If iTunes can't make a profit selling songs at $1 per, that's corporate incompetence. We had this out a few weeks ago. Per unit distribution cost appears to be under 8 cents a song; it's the exorbitant licensing that accounts for most of the all the rest, possibly excepting advertising ... about which see the comment above.

You are missing the point here. Apple is not trying to make a profit from Itunes, they are trying to sell software for their Ipods and Ipod touch. The object is to sell the hardware, not make a profit from the songs. The folks that are just selling songs have no hardware to sell, and they must sell songs to get a profit - hence why downloads are currently high priced. Secondly, the market is small, too small to push prices downward at this time. I am sure when the demand for songs only(sans pushing hardware) grows, the prices will fall, we are just not there yet.

Per unit distribution is not stuck at 8 cents a song. That value changes over the life of the song being on the server. I don't know where you get your 8 cent value, but that does not jive with what the manager of the Apple store told me.

Many of you have no idea of the particulars when it comes to either physical distribution or digital downloads(let alone production, advertising and distribution costs). Many of you are just pure guessing at costs, and basing your opinions on what you think it is, rather than the reality of what it actually is. Maybe somebody here can find out what the exact costs are, then you can form a fact based opinion, rather than a fact less one. I do not know ALL of the answers, but I do know enough from first hand experience that many are just not in the ballpark when it comes to the expense side. So when you begin to talk about "lower costs" in a world where costs are going up, all I can do is just shake my head. Folks demand quality, but they want it cheaply. These two do not go hand in hand. If you want something at a "lower cost", then you really need to lower your quality demands dramatically. An album with high production values is not cheap, and therefore you cannot sell it cheap. That is the bottom line.

Feanor
11-28-2010, 12:46 PM
I'm only going to respond to a couple of minor points, Sir T.

By long-established accounting convention, advertising is not a cost of "production", nor a cost of "distribution" for that matter. Both of these traditionally pertain to units of physical product and the related physical processes. Advertising does not meet this definition; it is discretionary and not related to physical product; in this respect it resembles licensing costs. Granted, it is obviously necessary to promote sales.

The 8 cents per song number emerged a few weeks ago in this forum, based an online report of Apple's margins for download music and iPhone apps. It's not a certain number, but it is within the parameters implicit in total cost and margins that were reported. Yes, as you say, it is a number that can change. Specifically, since it must include a lot of fixed or semi-fixed cost, if the volume of sales were to increase, the unit cost would be less, perhaps much less, than 8 cents per song. This only supports the argument of those us who believe downloads are overpriced.

basite
11-28-2010, 03:46 PM
I am very familar with ESATA, that is now my drives are connected to my media center. Once again, what is easy for you and I, is not easy for average joe.If it was, they would be doing it already. It is certainly easier for somebody to rent or buy a disc, pop it in the player, and press play than it is to manage a media center and several terabyte hard drives.

I don't see how Esata is more difficult than USB, after all, it's just a connector, which goes into a port..., it just looks different than USB, but I don't see a problem there...
and while some media centers are REALLY complicated (I do give you credit on that point), others are not. Not at all actually, and can easily be made even simpler to use. As a matter of fact, I don't know on how digital TV is evolving there, but we can buy or rent movies here on our TV, which are then stored on the "digibox" (that's the name they give it here... media center, tv tuner, radio, recorder,... provided by our distributor) both in SD as HD (well, as you say, compressed in some way, but this is also just a matter of time before uncompressed material will be streaming here...) even the smallest kid can handle the interface...


When my kids were three, they could load a laser disc into the player, and press play. Training is a wonderful thing. I still have those disc, so every kid is not clumsy and clueless.

True, and I bet that when my kids reach the age of three later, they'll be able to load a blu ray disc (or whatever the standard is then), and press play too, but then again I'm an audio nut, and Audio & video will probably be my job later (filmschool student here :) ), but most peoples kids won't be able to properly load a disc and press play, heck, I think even some of their parents will have difficulties doing that...

Not trying to be disrespectful, but you comments are BS. I have had two drives fail, and I still have the discs just as pristine as the day I bought them. Maybe you haven't heard about the durabiltiy of the Bluray disc. There is nothing a kid can do to make the disc unplayable. Check out this demo to see how tough the disc is.

and I can say the opposite. the way I see it, this is just my word against yours.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxyiAk3AzN0&feature=related

Here is another with a pretty scratched up disc, and guess what, it still plays!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1un6hXV2H0s&feature=related

So much for the scratch argument!

I'm impressed, really, but kids do have an unfortunate capability to be able to destroy pretty much everything you put in their hands, but still, I'm impressed...

There is no way I would call a hard drive software. The drive can fail(and will), but you can scratch and damage a Bluray disc, and it will still play. Why reinvent the copy protection wheel when the one if place is already working? Doesn't make much sense to me.


sorry, I didn't mean the hard drive was "software", sorry for the misunderstanding, but I meant files on the hard drive. Yes, a simple file is not really copy protected, but it could work as a program (software), which could be copy protected.


Wow, you have not been keeping up little brother. You can take your Bluray music with you, I do all of the time. Let me introduce you to the Bluray portable player.

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMP-B15-Portable-Blu-ray-Player/dp/B001VYZVBC

While it is not as small as a Ipod, it does give you portability(so an ipod doesnt?), and you can watch Bluray movies on it to boot. Try that with a Ipod! It is lightweight(only 2.4lbs with the battery) (which is heavy, compared to an ipod) which means you can pop it over your shoulder in its carrier and be on your way (oh, really portable). I can play all of my high resolution music discs on it(try that with an Ipod) while on the go.
(if you have them with you, just like a portable cd player, YEARS ago...)

I knew about that, but that thing is still a handicap. while "I might not keeping up" (which I am, btw), you are definitely not up to date with any sort of fashion, not to offense the invention, but that thing is about as useful as a friggin walkman! and it's too big.

while it's great for viewing movies on the train or something, it only holds one disc, it's WAY to big, WAY to expensive and the battery is dead after only 2,5 hours of use...

thanks, but no thanks, i'd take a laptop instead...

and yes, the Ipod might not play the high resolution uncompressed audio & video from a blu ray disc, but it does sound reasonably good, more than good enough for most peoples uses, and it's actually portable (I don't know your interpretation of "portable", but for most people, a "portable media player", is only "portable" if it fits in one's pocket, not in a bag for over your shoulder), it costs about one third of the portable blu ray player, looks better, and it actually can hold more than one album at the time. (yes, your portable blu ray player can do that too, if you have a separate bag for your blu ray discs..., and even then, after one long movie, the battery is dead anyway)

btw, I find that thing very similar to the portable DVD players, great for your kids in a car, which is about the only place I've ever seen any, btw, and most of them were built in the vehicle itself... didn't really catch on...


Ummm, no Bert, you are copying an already recorded album. Yes it is degraded, but no more so than a MP3 file or the files you get from Itunes. And no, you cannot copy a Bluray disc that way. You may be able to get it on the drive, but if you try and play it back, it is a no go. The BD+ and BD watermark will look for the handshake protocols, and if they are not there, it will not play.

if I get a blu ray player, connect the analog line out, to the analog line in on my PC, and I press "record" on the pc, or on something else, a CDR recorder, for example, or basically, everything that records, IT WILL RECORD, nothing you can do about it, and it will play. This is the exact method as you are using with copying vinyl too. I wanna see you hide that protocol in an analog signal...

the method you are explaining for the BR copy, would be making a physical copy of the vinyl record, and I wanna see you do that...

.....

Ajani
11-28-2010, 03:48 PM
I thought we were talking about high resolution audio, not low resolution audio. If we are talking MP3, then I have no comment on the price or players. I am not interested in discussing that at all.

What is a low price? How can you define that without knowing the cost of production and marketing? Have you ever recorded and album and had to release it? Have you ever incurred the cost of marketing and distribution? Probably not, hence why you think folks can just offer a product for a "low price".

Low price has never deterred piracy. A single song costs 69 -99 cents on Itunes, but you still have people trading them on peer to peer networks. So what do we do, just give away our tunes for free? Do we just swallow the costs of recording, marketing and distribution, then practically give away the song for free just to curb piracy? That does not make good business sense at all. DRM is here to protect the value of the product, if even for a short window of time. There is a balance that must be struck here, and since you are not familiar with the costs of production, you are not going to find that balance with a diffusive couple of words like "low price".


It would have been more reasonable to just admit that you were wrong than to pretend that in a discussion about the price of downloading albums versus piracy, that you we were discussing solely high resolution content... That is just ridiculous. You have mentioned iTunes (even after this post) in your discussion with Feanor... iTunes does not sell high resolution content... So I am at a total loss as to why you would think we could be discussing only high res... High res is a tick on a dog's backside in a discussion of downloading and piracy of music...

Also, the same DRM related costs you keep preaching about would apply just as much to lossy files as high resolution ones... Your argument about the state of hardware is applicable to both... and the fact that the hardware is Mature for low res, makes it clear that your assertion about hardware is incorrect...

You know many things about recording and movies but you are still wrong on this issue.. Hardware is not the issue... High prices are...

Also, the assertion that digital copies are more expensive to produce than physical ones is preposterous... The only reason would be self-imposed DRM related nonsense... Since I could distribute unlimited digital copies of my album at virtually no cost to me, whereas selling actual CDs would definitely cost me money, then no amount of arguments about us not being in the industry will work...

The truth is that most persons don't trust the music industry to be even remotely honest about cost... and for good reason... Why should the industry admit that songs on iTunes should only cost about 30C each (if that is the case) when they can charge 99C...

As for the argument about how Google/Apple make money, here's a thought:

Performance royalties - allow Google and Apple to offer unlimited streaming services to consumers. Then simply charge a REASONABLE amount for performance royalties for each time an artist's song is played... Both Google and Apple are more than capable of keeping track of that... It eliminates the need for persons owning and pirating the music and arguments about the cost of songs... The same system would apply to Google, Apple or anyone else who wanted to offer free unlimited streaming... they would make their revenue from advertising, but the music industry would still be paid by performance royalties...

It's not that complicated for everyone to benefit, but it requires ditching tired old ways of thinking... Too bad those with the power to make change have no interest in doing so...

audio amateur
11-29-2010, 01:25 AM
Bert, if it is not revolutionary, can you name another format that can store 1080p film images, 24/192khz audio(and every other variation as well) 3D, and 4K images all on the same disc? Can you name another consumer disc format with 50GB of storage with the ability to grow to 200GB and playable on today's player? While you may downplay Bluray's significance, quite a few others do not. Would you not agree that your perspective is yours, but not everyones?
Nope, it's merely an evolution. You can call it what you want, but technically, it's nothing more than an evolution. I will agree however, that it is a good one.

I had heard about the capacity increase, but i'm wondering if it's really going to happen, and to what capacity.

poppachubby
11-29-2010, 02:44 AM
I thought the basic economic theory of demand is that when it's high, so is the price. So why would downloads be any different?

Ajani
11-29-2010, 04:11 AM
I thought the basic economic theory of demand is that when it's high, so is the price. So why would downloads be any different?

That basic theory assumes a real "free market" as Sir T claims... Is that really so for music and especially downloads?

Even if the retailers wanted to charge a reasonable amount, they still have to cover any excessive DRM related costs, imposed on them by the music industry, first...

Essentially DRM related costs means that legitimate customers pay a premium to cover what the music industry believes to be lost sales due to piracy... The problem being that such a scheme merely gives legitimate customers a reason not to want pay.... We have similar problems with income tax and electricity bills in Jamaica, where the legitimate tax payers have to pay more tax to cover the lost revenue from non tax payers... It just makes persons even more hostile towards paying any tax... the solution is to develop a more sensible tax scheme, not to jack up taxes on the existing tax payers... the music industry is taking the same ridiculous approach of punishing legitimate customers, rather than trying to figure out a new business model....

Feanor
11-29-2010, 05:14 AM
I thought the basic economic theory of demand is that when it's high, so is the price. So why would downloads be any different?
No ... at least, not in a competitive market environment.

In the first place, consumer demand depends on price, low price = high demand and vice versa. "Flexibility" of demand means that there is relatively more change in demand with change in price. Thus if consumer demand for downloadable music is "flexible", it means if you lower the price a lot more people will download rather than just a few more.

Secondly, in a competitive market, generally higher consumer demand will (a) bring more producers into the market, and (b) in turn cause, original producers to improve their efficiency. These factors will result in lower prices in response to higher demand.

But of course there in zero competition in the case of music! Yes, of course, there might be multiple, competing sellers, (iTunes, Amazon, Google), but, as we have established, most of the price is licenses/royalties, not production or distribution cost. Ultimately there is no competition for a given song; each song has its copywriter holder who sets its basic price by setting the license fee.

Ajani
11-29-2010, 05:30 AM
No ... at least, no in a competitive market environment.

In the first place, consumer demand depends on price, low price = high demand and vice versa. "Flexibility" of demand means that there is relatively more change in demand with change in price. Thus if consumer demand for downloadable music is "flexible", it means if you lower the price a lot more people will download rather than just a few more.

Secondly, in a competitive market, generally higher consumer demand will (a) bring more producers into the market, and (b) in turn cause, original producers to improve their efficiency. These factors will result in lower prices in response to higher demand.

But of course there in zero competition in the case of music! Yes, of course, there might be multiple, competing sellers, (iTunes, Amazon, Google), but, as we have established, most of the price is licenses/royalties, not production or distribution cost. Ultimately there is no competition for a given song; each song has its copywriter holder who sets its basic price by setting the license fee.

:thumbsup:

To add to the point that low price = higher demand (unless you are referring to luxury goods like some HiFi equipment, but definitely not music), consider that since free downloads have been widely available more people have massive song collections than ever before...

How many people had hundreds of cassettes or LPs back in the day? I'm sure it was only a relatively small percentage of the population... Now finding someone with thousands of songs on their computer/iPod is easy... When I was an early teen and had hundreds of cassettes I was the only one in my class, a few years later when Napster hit big almost everyone my age had a massive collection of downloads. Those persons were not buying 2 or 3 albums a week like I was, before napster...

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-29-2010, 09:00 AM
It would have been more reasonable to just admit that you were wrong than to pretend that in a discussion about the price of downloading albums versus piracy, that you we were discussing solely high resolution content... That is just ridiculous. You have mentioned iTunes (even after this post) in your discussion with Feanor... iTunes does not sell high resolution content... So I am at a total loss as to why you would think we could be discussing only high res... High res is a tick on a dog's backside in a discussion of downloading and piracy of music...

Sorry Ajani, but I have no interest in low rez music PERIOD! Perhaps I thought we were talking about high resolution music because the title of the thread is "SACD and DVD-A dead, are CD's it?" What the hell does that have to do with a lossy file from Itunes?


Also, the same DRM related costs you keep preaching about would apply just as much to lossy files as high resolution ones... Your argument about the state of hardware is applicable to both... and the fact that the hardware is Mature for low res, makes it clear that your assertion about hardware is incorrect...

When I was talking about the cost of hardware, I was referring to high resolution music not lossy low rez music files. As I have said before, I have no interest in discussing low rez lossy audio files, and if that were the topic at hand, you would not have seen my name in the thread.


You know many things about recording and movies but you are still wrong on this issue.. Hardware is not the issue... High prices are...

That is your opinion, and like a$$es...well you know what I mean

In the context of talking about "SACD and DVD-A dead, are CD's it?" not"Why are downloads so expensive" I am quite right about high resolution downloads hardware. Keep the title of the thread in your head, that way we are all on the same page here.


Also, the assertion that digital copies are more expensive to produce than physical ones is preposterous... The only reason would be self-imposed DRM related nonsense... Since I could distribute unlimited digital copies of my album at virtually no cost to me, whereas selling actual CDs would definitely cost me money, then no amount of arguments about us not being in the industry will work...

The album costs you to make didn't it? Studio time wasn't free was it? The audio engineer wasn't free was it? The mastering engineer wasn't free was it? The master file wasn't free was it? The whole process extends a bit farther than the edge of your nose Ajani. Keeping in mind all of those things, what price do you charge for that file?

The truth is that most persons don't trust the music industry to be even remotely honest about cost... and for good reason... Why should the industry admit that songs on iTunes should only cost about 30C each (if that is the case) when they can charge 99C...


As for the argument about how Google/Apple make money, here's a thought:

Performance royalties - allow Google and Apple to offer unlimited streaming services to consumers. Then simply charge a REASONABLE amount for performance royalties for each time an artist's song is played... Both Google and Apple are more than capable of keeping track of that... It eliminates the need for persons owning and pirating the music and arguments about the cost of songs... The same system would apply to Google, Apple or anyone else who wanted to offer free unlimited streaming... they would make their revenue from advertising, but the music industry would still be paid by performance royalties...

Who decides what is REASONABLE? You? Hell no I am not going to allow just anyone to decide the value of my work. Besides, hasn't anyone heard of Pandora???


It's not that complicated for everyone to benefit, but it requires ditching tired old ways of thinking... Too bad those with the power to make change have no interest in doing so...

It's even worse that people want something for nothing.

The bottom line here is that you have no idea what it cost to produce an album. Until you do, your opinion is an uneducated one. The cost to produce the digital file has not dropped, so it might be a little early to talk about cutting the price of the end product.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-29-2010, 09:18 AM
No ... at least, not in a competitive market environment.

In the first place, consumer demand depends on price, low price = high demand and vice versa. "Flexibility" of demand means that there is relatively more change in demand with change in price. Thus if consumer demand for downloadable music is "flexible", it means if you lower the price a lot more people will download rather than just a few more.

Secondly, in a competitive market, generally higher consumer demand will (a) bring more producers into the market, and (b) in turn cause, original producers to improve their efficiency. These factors will result in lower prices in response to higher demand.

But of course there in zero competition in the case of music! Yes, of course, there might be multiple, competing sellers, (iTunes, Amazon, Google), but, as we have established, most of the price is licenses/royalties, not production or distribution cost. Ultimately there is no competition for a given song; each song has its copywriter holder who sets its basic price by setting the license fee.

Just a few points here. The price of production is not insignificant, that is for sure. Licensing fees are negotiated by BMG or ASCAP, not the copy write holder.

Ajani
11-29-2010, 10:14 AM
Sorry Ajani, but I have no interest in low rez music PERIOD! Perhaps I thought we were talking about high resolution music because the title of the thread is "SACD and DVD-A dead, are CD's it?" What the hell does that have to do with a lossy file from Itunes?



When I was talking about the cost of hardware, I was referring to high resolution music not lossy low rez music files. As I have said before, I have no interest in discussing low rez lossy audio files, and if that were the topic at hand, you would not have seen my name in the thread.



That is your opinion, and like a$$es...well you know what I mean

In the context of talking about "SACD and DVD-A dead, are CD's it?" not"Why are downloads so expensive" I am quite right about high resolution downloads hardware. Keep the title of the thread in your head, that way we are all on the same page here.



The album costs you to make didn't it? Studio time wasn't free was it? The audio engineer wasn't free was it? The mastering engineer wasn't free was it? The master file wasn't free was it? The whole process extends a bit farther than the edge of your nose Ajani. Keeping in mind all of those things, what price do you charge for that file?

The truth is that most persons don't trust the music industry to be even remotely honest about cost... and for good reason... Why should the industry admit that songs on iTunes should only cost about 30C each (if that is the case) when they can charge 99C...



Who decides what is REASONABLE? You? Hell no I am not going to allow just anyone to decide the value of my work. Besides, hasn't anyone heard of Pandora???



It's even worse that people want something for nothing.

The bottom line here is that you have no idea what it cost to produce an album. Until you do, your opinion is an uneducated one. The cost to produce the digital file has not dropped, so it might be a little early to talk about cutting the price of the end product.
First off, the title of the thread includes CD not just SACD/DVDA, so it is not limited to high resolution as CD is clearly not high res. Also your desire to limit the discussion of downloading to only high res makes no sense as there is no significant difference in the business model for high res versus AAC/MP3… so the fact that an abundance of hardware has not dropped the price of AAC/MP3s should clearly show you that suddenly having an abundance of high res iPods/streamers will not drop the price of high res downloads… The price won’t drop because the Music Industry does not want it to…

No one has ever said that the TOTAL price to produce an album is not significant... Here's the problem: total price is comprised of fixed and variable costs. The costs to distribute electronic copies or burn a CD or LP are variable... All the studio costs to produce an album are fixed and hence don't vary with sales... So the obvious truth is that the studios need to cover the variable cost of the downloads (which is minimal), and then calculate a contribution margin (sales price - variable costs) and multiply it by the units sold, to cover fixed costs and a healthy profit...

So essentially the total cost of producing a single copy of an album depends on the number of units sold... So the more you sell, the lower the cost becomes (never below variable costs)... If the Music Industry reduces price they will sell more downloads... I doubt even you would disagree with that... The more downloads they sell means the lower the cost to produce each download...

Also, the whole argument that only industry insiders have any idea of cost is untrue... The debate about prices has been raging for well over a decade... When I was buying CDs and cassettes in the early 90s, CDs costed quite a bit more than cassettes.... what was the reason? was it cost? Nope... CD burners soon became available and consumers realized it was actually cheaper and easier to burn a CD than record a cassette, yet the music industry still charged a heavy premium for CDs... So consumers don't believe that the music industry pricing is even remotely legit...

As for Pandora: why has the industry not allowed Apple or Google to do similar schemes? The industry would rather claim their costs are high and piracy is destroying their livelihood, than embrace change...

RGA
11-29-2010, 11:00 AM
The thing with all the music formats is that at some point the market demand will rule. And that market is young people 13 to 25 or so who don't pay a single penny for any music. I'm a teacher and the kids all download their tunes from the likes of bittorent for free. They don't care about quality since everyone listens to iPods and not $40,000 stereo systems - and even if daddy owns such a beast they connect their iPod up to it with 128bit resolution(or lack of resolution as the case may be).

Part of that is because there is an extreme wealth discrepency in North America where the CEO makes a billion in salary and everyone else gets as little as is humanly possible. So of course the McDonalds employees are not spending $25 on a SACD or even $9 on a regular CD because that is 1-2 hours gross pay for most people. And there are video games to buy.

3 years ago I was told by a Sony rep that they were considering dumping the SACD format - both hardware and software. So I never really bothered with it because I\ve already bought into dead formats (Laser Disc was a rather costly mistake).

I am far more confident in Blu-Ray sticking and since you get one when you buy a PS3 Sony has done it right this time by getting the young people into the technology via selling them the video game - and giving them a good quality one to boot. Really rather brilliant of Sony this time around. They tried doing it with SACD by throwing the converter into all of their entry level DVD players and mega changers but the software pricing is far higher and frankly most people don't have good enough stereo systems to really take advantage of superior sounding recordings. Not to mention the total lack of artists that mainstream listeners listen to. Mozart is great if you're 50+ (even then I dunno - iot's probably 65+) but superior recordings probably need to be done with the likes of NickelBack, Pearl Jam, Lady Gaga, Avril Lavigne, Justin Beber or the like if you want to cinvince younger people with better hearing to buy into better formats on sound quality.

But when the Sony rep is telling me they were planning to dump it it is really tough to go out and spend $4,000 on a dedicated good SACD machine and buy 3-4 more high level speakers and a surround sound amp (with high damping factor and negative feedback) for discs that may stop being produced and worse machines that may stop being produced. Sure it's fine if you are "rich" and can buy anything regardless of cost to tell others they should buy it because it sounds better but why bother when a couple years later you know Blu-Ray will crush SACD or DVD-A in both sound quality, and title selection and will very likely have far longer future success and support.

Ajani
11-29-2010, 11:52 AM
The thing with all the music formats is that at some point the market demand will rule. And that market is young people 13 to 25 or so who don't pay a single penny for any music. I'm a teacher and the kids all download their tunes from the likes of bittorent for free. They don't care about quality since everyone listens to iPods and not $40,000 stereo systems - and even if daddy owns such a beast they connect their iPod up to it with 128bit resolution(or lack of resolution as the case may be).

Part of that is because there is an extreme wealth discrepency in North America where the CEO makes a billion in salary and everyone else gets as little as is humanly possible. So of course the McDonalds employees are not spending $25 on a SACD or even $9 on a regular CD because that is 1-2 hours gross pay for most people. And there are video games to buy.

3 years ago I was told by a Sony rep that they were considering dumping the SACD format - both hardware and software. So I never really bothered with it because I\ve already bought into dead formats (Laser Disc was a rather costly mistake).

I am far more confident in Blu-Ray sticking and since you get one when you buy a PS3 Sony has done it right this time by getting the young people into the technology via selling them the video game - and giving them a good quality one to boot. Really rather brilliant of Sony this time around. They tried doing it with SACD by throwing the converter into all of their entry level DVD players and mega changers but the software pricing is far higher and frankly most people don't have good enough stereo systems to really take advantage of superior sounding recordings. Not to mention the total lack of artists that mainstream listeners listen to. Mozart is great if you're 50+ (even then I dunno - iot's probably 65+) but superior recordings probably need to be done with the likes of NickelBack, Pearl Jam, Lady Gaga, Avril Lavigne, Justin Beber or the like if you want to cinvince younger people with better hearing to buy into better formats on sound quality.

But when the Sony rep is telling me they were planning to dump it it is really tough to go out and spend $4,000 on a dedicated good SACD machine and buy 3-4 more high level speakers and a surround sound amp (with high damping factor and negative feedback) for discs that may stop being produced and worse machines that may stop being produced. Sure it's fine if you are "rich" and can buy anything regardless of cost to tell others they should buy it because it sounds better but why bother when a couple years later you know Blu-Ray will crush SACD or DVD-A in both sound quality, and title selection and will very likely have far longer future success and support.

The sooner the music industry recognizes that, the better... The 'genius' strategy of jacking up prices on legitimate customers, with DRM related fees, will only last so long...

As for SACD/DVDA/BluRayA; the issue is whether there is sufficient content that you want to listen to available... If the current catalogs are enough to justify purchasing the hardware, then why not? If however, much of the music you want to listen to is not available, then I wouldn't suggest buying hardware for any of those formats...

GMichael
11-29-2010, 12:11 PM
Blu-Ray baby.....

3LB
11-29-2010, 01:25 PM
most art, societal progress, sometimes even technological progress, will eventually get crushed by the heel of convenience

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-29-2010, 01:48 PM
I don't see how Esata is more difficult than USB, after all, it's just a connector, which goes into a port..., it just looks different than USB, but I don't see a problem there...
and while some media centers are REALLY complicated (I do give you credit on that point), others are not. Not at all actually, and can easily be made even simpler to use. As a matter of fact, I don't know on how digital TV is evolving there, but we can buy or rent movies here on our TV, which are then stored on the "digibox" (that's the name they give it here... media center, tv tuner, radio, recorder,... provided by our distributor) both in SD as HD (well, as you say, compressed in some way, but this is also just a matter of time before uncompressed material will be streaming here...) even the smallest kid can handle the interface.......

I wasn't talking about the connector, I was talking about the process. Once again, it is far easier to just pop in a disc and press play than it is to manage a hard drive based audio or video connected to an A/V system. It may seem easy to you and I, but it is too much hassle for a great many people. We have DVR's here, but since I don't use one, I cannot speak to ease of use, but it is probably a very simple process.

There is no way anyone will ever see uncompressed video, the file are too large to store(a single movie is over 10 terabytes), and it requires a HUGE pipeline for distribution, something that no country on this planet has(not even South Korea).


True, and I bet that when my kids reach the age of three later, they'll be able to load a blu ray disc (or whatever the standard is then), and press play too, but then again I'm an audio nut, and Audio & video will probably be my job later (filmschool student here ), but most peoples kids won't be able to properly load a disc and press play, heck, I think even some of their parents will have difficulties doing that...

I have never heard of a person unable to use a disc player of any kind, even my grandparents know how to use a DVD/Bluray player, and their DVR. When the see my media server based system, their eyes roll back, their skin gets white as a sheet, and they look light headed. LOL.

Now that I think of it, all of my 8 god children, all of my nieces and nephews, and most of my friends children can operate a DVD/Bluray player.


sorry, I didn't mean the hard drive was "software", sorry for the misunderstanding, but I meant files on the hard drive. Yes, a simple file is not really copy protected, but it could work as a program (software), which could be copy protected.

Here is the problem with this. It is far easier to crack software on a drive or disc, than it is to crack copy protection protocol between two components. This is why BD+ and BD watermark use communications between two components, as opposed to CSS copy protection which is on the disc itself.


while it's great for viewing movies on the train or something, it only holds one disc, it's WAY to big, WAY to expensive and the battery is dead after only 2,5 hours of use...

thanks, but no thanks, i'd take a laptop instead...

Oh come on! I used it all of the time, it is not heavy(you don't even feel the weight), and it really is not that big. Besides, there is a backup battery you can buy with it that extends its operation to 5 hours, just long enough to fly from LA to Orlando. Laptops are too big!


and yes, the Ipod might not play the high resolution uncompressed audio & video from a blu ray disc, but it does sound reasonably good, more than good enough for most peoples uses, and it's actually portable (I don't know your interpretation of "portable", but for most people, a "portable media player", is only "portable" if it fits in one's pocket, not in a bag for over your shoulder), it costs about one third of the portable blu ray player, looks better, and it actually can hold more than one album at the time. (yes, your portable blu ray player can do that too, if you have a separate bag for your blu ray discs..., and even then, after one long movie, the battery is dead anyway)

Bert, portable is portable. The definition does not mean "it fits in your pocket". Portable means it is easily moved from one place to the next, and that describes a "portable" Bluray player. An Ipod may be cheaper, but it can only play low rez music, and low rez video. Let's not mention that it is really too small for video viewing.

Once again, the battery extender you can buy it lightweight, and extends the operation of the player another 2.5-3.5 hours.


btw, I find that thing very similar to the portable DVD players, great for your kids in a car, which is about the only place I've ever seen any, btw, and most of them were built in the vehicle itself... didn't really catch on...

Maybe not in your neck of the woods, but here in California they are popular as hell. I have one built in my hybrid SUV


if I get a blu ray player, connect the analog line out, to the analog line in on my PC, and I press "record" on the pc, or on something else, a CDR recorder, for example, or basically, everything that records, IT WILL RECORD, nothing you can do about it, and it will play. This is the exact method as you are using with copying vinyl too. I wanna see you hide that protocol in an analog signal...

You won't get HD video in this case, you will just get a 480i signal from that output.


the method you are explaining for the BR copy, would be making a physical copy of the vinyl record, and I wanna see you do that...

Been there done that! I even did a blind listening test with my kids(who by the way have excellent ears). They could not tell the vinyl from the digital copy of it. That is the power of 24/192khz audio.

Great discussion by the way!

pixelthis
11-29-2010, 02:15 PM
I thought the basic economic theory of demand is that when it's high, so is the price. So why would downloads be any different?

because they are basically limitless, so DRM is the only cost.
When Gutenberg invented the printing press, it changed the world, because now
anyone could get a book. CHEAP BIBLES brought about the protestant movement
when it was discovered that the Catholic church was basically lying about what it said.
And that was only one thing caused by cheap books.
Now the "net" has occured, and the effect will be even greater, nobodies figured out
how great creating millions of copies of not only books but music and even video
instantly will change things, but they know it will.
Its already killed the video store, the music industry is in trouble, and the music
store is on the endangered list. And that is just the start.:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-29-2010, 02:38 PM
First off, the title of the thread includes CD not just SACD/DVDA, so it is not limited to high resolution as CD is clearly not high res. Also your desire to limit the discussion of downloading to only high res makes no sense as there is no significant difference in the business model for high res versus AAC/MP3… so the fact that an abundance of hardware has not dropped the price of AAC/MP3s should clearly show you that suddenly having an abundance of high res iPods/streamers will not drop the price of high res downloads… The price won’t drop because the Music Industry does not want it to…

So as I thought, a low rez digital download is not apart of this discussion based on this response.

You are wrong Ajani, their is a huge difference between the marketing of high resolution downloads versus lossy low resolution downloads. First, there is no model for low resolution downloads outside of the loss leader model. Nobody is selling digital files just to sell music, they are selling hardware, and the low resolution digital file is the loss leader that sells it. This is the only model we have seen since the Itunes store began. Microsoft entry into digital downloads was to push the Zune, and Amazon their MP3 players. Not one of these companies values the musical file, they value the hardware and heavily subsidize the digital file, hence why nobody is making any money on MP3 downloads.

High resolution download sites do not use the music as a loss leader, which is why it is so expensive, much more so than Itunes. They are selling the music, not some piece of hardware to play the music on. These two approaches are in total contrast to one another, so any talk of no significant marketing difference is just plain hogwash.


No one has ever said that the TOTAL price to produce an album is not significant... Here's the problem: total price is comprised of fixed and variable costs. The costs to distribute electronic copies or burn a CD or LP are variable... All the studio costs to produce an album are fixed and hence don't vary with sales... So the obvious truth is that the studios need to cover the variable cost of the downloads (which is minimal), and then calculate a contribution margin (sales price - variable costs) and multiply it by the units sold, to cover fixed costs and a healthy profit...

It is VERY apparent by this statement that you are clueless about getting an album from conception to distribution. There is no such thing as a fixed cost in production. Studio costs are not fixed as you state, they are quite variable. No studio charges the same hourly charge, and no audio engineer charges the same rate. No master engineer charges the same rate, and nobody knows how long it will take to master the music. The cost of the product is determined long before a single unit is sold, so your whole cost calculation is mud. Profit is determined after enough units sold covers the cost of production, marketing, distribution(or host costs) and other extraneous costs. Whatever is left, that is the profit. The record company puts out a suggestion retail cost based on what the market will bare, and allows the store or host company decide their actual sell cost. The record company does not determine what the store or host will charge for the final product.


So essentially the total cost of producing a single copy of an album depends on the number of units sold... So the more you sell, the lower the cost becomes (never below variable costs)... If the Music Industry reduces price they will sell more downloads... I doubt even you would disagree with that... The more downloads they sell means the lower the cost to produce each download..

The total cost of producing an album is not tied to sales of that album. Those costs are determined long before the album even hits the shelves. The "music industry" does not set sales prices, the retailer does. The record company tells the retailer what they will pay for the product, and the retailer has to determine how much they charge the consumer so they can make a profit. You have this whole process completely twisted.


Also, the whole argument that only industry insiders have any idea of cost is untrue... The debate about prices has been raging for well over a decade..

Well, since you think everyone knows what the cost is, tell me how much does it cost to produce an the typical amount of songs on a R&B, jazz, or classical music project? Since you state everyone knows, then you should not have any problem giving me a close ballpark figure. This would include studio or live room rental, audio engineering charges, mastering charges, disc stamping charges, the tapes or hard drive, and distribution charges. This is what I mean by knowing how much the total cost of production and distribution.

How much does it cost to host a typical song on digital file on a server?


. When I was buying CDs and cassettes in the early 90s, CDs costed quite a bit more than cassettes.... what was the reason? was it cost? Nope...

You were still paying CD R&D costs in the early nineties. You were paying for infrastructure expansion in the early nineties. You were paying for the increase costs of digital equipment for production in the early nineties. Cassettes had long paid for these setup and expansion costs. Materials and duplication costs were long recovered, along with efficiencies developed by mass production over the years.


CD burners soon became available and consumers realized it was actually cheaper and easier to burn a CD than record a cassette, yet the music industry still charged a heavy premium for CDs... So consumers don't believe that the music industry pricing is even remotely legit...


As for Pandora: why has the industry not allowed Apple or Google to do similar schemes? The industry would rather claim their costs are high and piracy is destroying their livelihood, than embrace change...

Nobody is stopping either company from doing what Pandora is already doing. They can do what Pandora is doing any time they feel like it, it is their decision. But selling music is not their core business.Apple sells computers, phones and music playback hardware, and the music store ensures they have content for those players. Google sells online ads, not music.

Why does apple sell music at all? I'll tell you..look at what happened to Google TV. They have a product, but they have no content control so they can sell their product. Now they have a pretty aborted rollout, and are stuck with inventory, R&D costs, and have disappointed their manufacturers. Apple does not want that to happen to them, hence the Itunes music store.

Ajani
11-29-2010, 03:32 PM
So as I thought, a low rez digital download is not apart of this discussion based on this response.

You are wrong Ajani, their is a huge difference between the marketing of high resolution downloads versus lossy low resolution downloads. First, there is no model for low resolution downloads outside of the loss leader model. Nobody is selling digital files just to sell music, they are selling hardware, and the low resolution digital file is the loss leader that sells it. This is the only model we have seen since the Itunes store began. Microsoft entry into digital downloads was to push the Zune, and Amazon their MP3 players. Not one of these companies values the musical file, they value the hardware and heavily subsidize the digital file, hence why nobody is making any money on MP3 downloads.

High resolution download sites do not use the music as a loss leader, which is why it is so expensive, much more so than Itunes. They are selling the music, not some piece of hardware to play the music on. These two approaches are in total contrast to one another, so any talk of no significant marketing difference is just plain hogwash.



It is VERY apparent by this statement that you are clueless about getting an album from conception to distribution. There is no such thing as a fixed cost in production. Studio costs are not fixed as you state, they are quite variable. No studio charges the same hourly charge, and no audio engineer charges the same rate. No master engineer charges the same rate, and nobody knows how long it will take to master the music. The cost of the product is determined long before a single unit is sold, so your whole cost calculation is mud. Profit is determined after enough units sold covers the cost of production, marketing, distribution(or host costs) and other extraneous costs. Whatever is left, that is the profit. The record company puts out a suggestion retail cost based on what the market will bare, and allows the store or host company decide their actual sell cost. The record company does not determine what the store or host will charge for the final product.



The total cost of producing an album is not tied to sales of that album. Those costs are determined long before the album even hits the shelves. The "music industry" does not set sales prices, the retailer does. The record company tells the retailer what they will pay for the product, and the retailer has to determine how much they charge the consumer so they can make a profit. You have this whole process completely twisted.



Well, since you think everyone knows what the cost is, tell me how much does it cost to produce an the typical amount of songs on a R&B, jazz, or classical music project? Since you state everyone knows, then you should not have any problem giving me a close ballpark figure. This would include studio or live room rental, audio engineering charges, mastering charges, disc stamping charges, the tapes or hard drive, and distribution charges. This is what I mean by knowing how much the total cost of production and distribution.

How much does it cost to host a typical song on digital file on a server?



You were still paying CD R&D costs in the early nineties. You were paying for infrastructure expansion in the early nineties. You were paying for the increase costs of digital equipment for production in the early nineties. Cassettes had long paid for these setup and expansion costs. Materials and duplication costs were long recovered, along with efficiencies developed by mass production over the years.


CD burners soon became available and consumers realized it was actually cheaper and easier to burn a CD than record a cassette, yet the music industry still charged a heavy premium for CDs... So consumers don't believe that the music industry pricing is even remotely legit...



Nobody is stopping either company from doing what Pandora is already doing. They can do what Pandora is doing any time they feel like it, it is their decision. But selling music is not their core business.Apple sells computers, phones and music playback hardware, and the music store ensures they have content for those players. Google sells online ads, not music.

Why does apple sell music at all? I'll tell you..look at what happened to Google TV. They have a product, but they have no content control so they can sell their product. Now they have a pretty aborted rollout, and are stuck with inventory, R&D costs, and have disappointed their manufacturers. Apple does not want that to happen to them, hence the Itunes music store.

Clearly you have no knowledge of either cost accounting or economics, which is why you did not understand my reference to the cost of producing an album as a fixed cost... Fixed cost does not mean that all albums cost $1M to make... Michael Jackson spent a hell of a lot more money producing albums than most artists in the industry... fixed costs means that the cost does not change in relation to the number of units sold... So if I spent $200,000 to produce an album, then whether I sell 500 or 5M units, that cost won't change... Variable costs are the cost that change with the number of units I produce; so for a CD, the actual disc, the jewel case and packaging would be variable costs. So if I sell 500 CDs then I'd need 500 discs and 500 jewel cases, while if I sell 1M CD then I'd need 1M discs and 1M jewel cases. Hence the cost varies with sales (production). So what I said still stands, but to understand it you'd need to research the difference between fixed and variable costs... Anyway, that's my fault for forgetting that we are not all accountants on this site...

Since all reports are that both Apple and Google have been negotiating for months with the music labels to get streaming services out, then clearly there is a hold up and it is not as simple as you think. The hold up most likely being the desire of the music industry to jack up the prices with DRM costs. DRM related costs are unnecessary and just greedy for a streaming service, as users don't download anything (hence they can't copy it).

So since Apple merely sells downloads to push hardware, then what hardware does Amazon push? If Apple is subsidizing the cost of downloads then that should tell you that the price is way beyond what the market will bear. Meaning the music industry is being too greedy...

E-Stat
11-29-2010, 03:51 PM
Fortunately for BD+ and BD watermark it is not a static copy protection like CSS on DVD, or any other copy protection used in the past. It can be altered on the fly, just ask Slysoft about that.
Does that explain the decidedly inconvenient need to download the latest firmware in order to play a particular BR disc?

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-29-2010, 04:20 PM
Clearly you have no knowledge of cost accounting, which is why you did not understand my reference to the cost of producing an album as a fixed cost... Fixed cost does not mean that all albums cost $1M to make... Michael Jackson spent a hell of a lot more money producing albums than most artists in the industry... fixed costs means that the cost does not change in relation to the number of units sold... So if I spent $200,000 to produce an album, then whether I sell 500 or 5M units, that cost won't change... Variable costs are the cost that change with the number of units I produce; so for a CD, the actual disc, the jewel case and packaging would be variable costs. So if I sell 500 CDs then I'd need 500 discs and 500 jewel cases, while if I sell 1M CD then I'd need 1M discs and 1M jewel cases. Hence the cost varies with sales (production). So what I said still stands, but to understand it you'd need to research the difference between fixed and variable costs... Anyway, that's my fault for forgetting that we are not all accountants on this site...

I am not a accountant, that is for sure!


Since all reports are that both Apple and Google have been negotiating for months with the music labels to get streaming services out, then clearly there is a hold up and it is not as simple as you think.

Nothing is simple, but you don't know what or who the hold up is. Is it Google, Apple, or the record companies. I would have to rule out the record companies because there are so many music streaming services already out there, so it must be Apple and Google. Look at it from another angle - how come Pandora,Grooveshark, lala, and Spotify can do it seemingly so easy, and companies the size of Google and Apple can't make it happen easily? All you have to do is pay for the cost of licensing, and that is all that is required. I used to have a online radio station called Drum Corps live on live365. The only thing it took for me to get that streaming service going was pay for the licensing and performance rights for the music, Live365 provided everything else.

The devil is in the detail, and the record companies are not always the devil. We blame everything on them except what they are truly responsible for. They have become the whipping boy for everything that is wrong with the music industry. They are guilty is some cases, and other segments within the industry are guilty in others. The average Joe is clueless to who is responsible for what, so they just blame the most visible entity because it is easy to do.


The hold up most likely being the desire of the music industry to jack up the prices with DRM costs. DRM related costs are unnecessary and just greedy for a streaming service, as users don't download anything (hence they can't copy it).

You make my point above right in this paragraph. The record companies don't put DRM on streamed music, the streaming service does. The record companies only require you HAVE DRM, it is up to the streaming service to decide which DRM is effective and financially feasible(or they design their own). Rhapsody's DRM is different than Pandora's, Grooveshark's is different from Spotify's etc.


So since Apple merely sells downloads to push hardware, then what hardware does Amazon push? If Apple is subsidizing the cost of downloads then that should tell you that the price is way beyond what the market will bear. Meaning the music industry is being too greedy...[/QUOTE]

Amazon sells MP3 players.

You still don't understand Apple's motivations. They make far more of a profit selling their hardware than they would selling a digital file. They subsidize to keep costs constant and predictable so they can keep selling hardware. If the price goes up, they sell less music and fewer players as well.

Since you don't know what the music industry charges Apple, then you cannot say who is being greedy and who is being smart. If Apple does not like the amount the music industry charges them, they do not have to accept the product. They negotiated the price, and signed the contract, and one has to believe that the threat of piracy gives them a strong hand.

You really have to stop blaming the music industry for everything under the sun, they are not always the blame for everything. Retailers are just as responsible as the music industry in many issues.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-29-2010, 04:22 PM
Does that explain the decidedly inconvenient need to download the latest firmware in order to play a particular BR disc?

rw

Ralph, 99% of the time that is a authoring issue, not a BD+ or BD watermark issue. If it was BD+ or BD watermark, no disc would play instead of a few of them.

E-Stat
11-29-2010, 04:43 PM
99% of the time that is a authoring issue, not a BD+ or BD watermark issue.
Sorry for the dumb question. It would certainly be a sort of a "nuclear option" that would not be very popular. :)

So the fault lies with disc itself requiring a player based workaround? While I'm all about the quality of the format, such never occurred in the DVD world.

rw

Ajani
11-29-2010, 05:10 PM
I am not a accountant, that is for sure!



Nothing is simple, but you don't know what or who the hold up is. Is it Google, Apple, or the record companies. I would have to rule out the record companies because there are so many music streaming services already out there, so it must be Apple and Google. Look at it from another angle - how come Pandora,Grooveshark, lala, and Spotify can do it seemingly so easy, and companies the size of Google and Apple can't make it happen easily? All you have to do is pay for the cost of licensing, and that is all that is required. I used to have a online radio station called Drum Corps live on live365. The only thing it took for me to get that streaming service going was pay for the licensing and performance rights for the music, Live365 provided everything else.

The devil is in the detail, and the record companies are not always the devil. We blame everything on them except what they are truly responsible for. They have become the whipping boy for everything that is wrong with the music industry. They are guilty is some cases, and other segments within the industry are guilty in others. The average Joe is clueless to who is responsible for what, so they just blame the most visible entity because it is easy to do.



You make my point above right in this paragraph. The record companies don't put DRM on streamed music, the streaming service does. The record companies only require you HAVE DRM, it is up to the streaming service to decide which DRM is effective and financially feasible(or they design their own). Rhapsody's DRM is different than Pandora's, Grooveshark's is different from Spotify's etc.

Amazon sells MP3 players.

You still don't understand Apple's motivations. They make far more of a profit selling their hardware than they would selling a digital file. They subsidize to keep costs constant and predictable so they can keep selling hardware. If the price goes up, they sell less music and fewer players as well.

Since you don't know what the music industry charges Apple, then you cannot say who is being greedy and who is being smart. If Apple does not like the amount the music industry charges them, they do not have to accept the product. They negotiated the price, and signed the contract, and one has to believe that the threat of piracy gives them a strong hand.

You really have to stop blaming the music industry for everything under the sun, they are not always the blame for everything. Retailers are just as responsible as the music industry in many issues.

Grooveshark is a great example as they have been unable to negotiate a streaming deal with the labels despite years of trying... How Grooveshark works is that they allow users to post any content on their site, and then Grooveshark contacts the labels and negotiates to pay some kind of royalties rather than being taken to court... Most persons are still amazed that Grooveshark has survived so long... So as I said, it is not a simple matter to negotiate a streaming deal... Apple acquired Lala (a streaming service over a year ago) and was not able to use Lala's licenses, but instead has to negotiate new ones with the labels...

It's not just consumer who blame the industry, try Cnet and the other major tech sites who talk about the streaming issue...

I understand that Apple makes most of it's money from hardware... Consider this: the new AppleTV has no internal storage, so clearly it is designed to offer streaming services and not downloads... Also Apple moved from large amounts of storage (iPod Classic) to minimal amounts on the Touch, iPhone & iPad... clearly having a load of downloads is not their plan... the aim is to stream... much like with the TV industry giving Apple and Google hell in bringing streaming TV content to AppleTV & GoogleTV, the music industry has been holding them up with music...

Why has Hulu had a TV streaming service for so long, yet Apple and Google can't work out a deal? Nothing I've read on the issues, whether from Cnet, PCWorld, Techradar, etc have pointed to the bottleneck being at Apple or Google... They would both benefit from having streaming music and tv services, the industry are the ones afraid of the change, as they don't trust Apple or Google...

poppachubby
11-30-2010, 03:30 AM
I have no idea really, but one thought comes to mind regarding Apple and Google "working out deals".

They are too big!!!

These are 2 companies with the potential (capital) to overtake or wipe out the very companies which they seek these deals with. That has to be a scary proposition for those who actually hold the keys to the doors.

Just a guess.

I will also add that bands nowadays have changed their view on the product of music. I don't think any group expects to make money on a release unless you're a super star. It's more about gaining exposure and fans so that when you pull into town, the venue is full and you can sell merch, etc.

The reality of being an average band today is that you are constantly on the road in order to pay the bills. Plain and simple. This is however a good thing for music lovers because it means the group of your choice will be tighter than a drum.

The days of releasing albums and not touring are long over. Perhaps dance music types don't need to, but there's not enough ecstacy in the world to keep me listening to that vapid crap.

Ajani
11-30-2010, 06:12 AM
I have no idea really, but one thought comes to mind regarding Apple and Google "working out deals".

They are too big!!!

These are 2 companies with the potential (capital) to overtake or wipe out the very companies which they seek these deals with. That has to be a scary proposition for those who actually hold the keys to the doors.

Just a guess.

That's probably a very good guess it is exactly what I've read in articles on this issue... The music and TV industries appear to be afraid of the size and power of Apple and Google... Pandora, Hulu and Spotify just aren't powerful enough to frighten the industry so it's much safer to make some kind of deal with them...


I will also add that bands nowadays have changed their view on the product of music. I don't think any group expects to make money on a release unless you're a super star. It's more about gaining exposure and fans so that when you pull into town, the venue is full and you can sell merch, etc.

The reality of being an average band today is that you are constantly on the road in order to pay the bills. Plain and simple. This is however a good thing for music lovers because it means the group of your choice will be tighter than a drum.

The days of releasing albums and not touring are long over. Perhaps dance music types don't need to, but there's not enough ecstacy in the world to keep me listening to that vapid crap.

I think that moving to a streaming system would actually allow small artists to make money without touring... As I said in an earlier post: if Apple, Google, etc develops unlimited streaming services (either flat fee or free with advertising), then the artists would be paid performance royalties every time their song is played (the way radio stations work)... So once people start listening to your tunes, you start making money... So you don't need to sell any albums nor worry about pirates downloading illegal copies....

I honestly think streaming is the best solution for the Music Industry problem... As long as there are not a whole lot of unnecessary DRM related legal costs passed on to Google/Apple and just standard performance royalties...

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-30-2010, 12:20 PM
Sorry for the dumb question. It would certainly be a sort of a "nuclear option" that would not be very popular. :)

That wasn't a dumb question at all. The reality is, BD+ can be used as a nuclear option, but I doubt the BDA would even consider using it.


So the fault lies with disc itself requiring a player based workaround? While I'm all about the quality of the format, such never occurred in the DVD world.

rw

It did happen with DVD VERY early in the game. My Toshiba player could not do the layer change without stuttering and freezing. It happen on two different Toshiba players. Eventually I just went with another model.

Keep in mind, authoring a DVD is a cakewalk compared to Bluray. You have BD live, multiple soundtracks and languages, commentary, in movie modes, 3D and everything else but the kitchen sink thrown in, that is a lot of data to combine, align, and get on the disc. Stamping errors can also crop up from time to time.

basite
11-30-2010, 02:23 PM
First off all, let me start with 2 small points:

I read several times now, that you are by no means interested in discussing "low res audio" (I assume that for you, everything less than Blu Ray audio falls under this category...). Well, from your interests point of view, and career, I can somewhat understand that. But I also think that you should "realize", that most of the music in the world is low res content... AND growing, one CANNOT simply rule out the importance of an ipod, and variatons in this world.

Secondly,
As much as we appreciate, or like to discuss, or like to argue about your extensive knowledge about blu ray as a complete format, including movies: this thread is about audio. blu ray AUDIO discs, in your posts, specifically. Which is also another reason why I think the portable blu ray player is a utterly pointless machine as a media/music player...


We have DVR's here, but since I don't use one, I cannot speak to ease of use, but it is probably a very simple process.

I can assure you it is, and a media center is not hard at all when set up.

There is no way anyone will ever see uncompressed video, the file are too large to store(a single movie is over 10 terabytes), and it requires a HUGE pipeline for distribution, something that no country on this planet has(not even South Korea).

Sorry, I stand corrected, but please allow me to rephrase: "store high resolution content, as high resolution as Blu ray"


I have never heard of a person unable to use a disc player of any kind, even my grandparents know how to use a DVD/Bluray player, and their DVR. When the see my media server based system, their eyes roll back, their skin gets white as a sheet, and they look light headed. LOL.

maybe not the ease of putting the disc in (well, I am sure there are some people on this world...). but as soon as there is a menu (even though it's still pressing enter). And when things go wrong (don't think blu ray without any failures, every format has had it's problems, blu ray too). Then we "geeks" come in to help, just as much as you might help your grandparents to set up a media center, and "learn" them how to use it (even though it's not hard at all...)

Here is the problem with this. It is far easier to crack software on a drive or disc, than it is to crack copy protection protocol between two components. This is why BD+ and BD watermark use communications between two components, as opposed to CSS copy protection which is on the disc itself.


Where there is money, there is a way. And at this moment, money is at blu ray. If someone really wants, they can protect software on a drive just as well as "with the 2 components"


Oh come on! I used it all of the time, it is not heavy(you don't even feel the weight), and it really is not that big. Besides, there is a backup battery you can buy with it that extends its operation to 5 hours, just long enough to fly from LA to Orlando. Laptops are too big!

I spot a very important sentence there: 'I used it all of the time", well, but you're an audio/recording/sound engineer of some kind, and obviously very interested in high resolution content. My cousin is a master university student, and you can obviously see that too, computer gadgets all over the place, even kinda talks the same way...
I'm a film school student, and I also live that way. Most other people, however, simply do not.

Bert, portable is portable. The definition does not mean "it fits in your pocket". Portable means it is easily moved from one place to the next, and that describes a "portable" Bluray player. An Ipod may be cheaper, but it can only play low rez music, and low rez video. Let's not mention that it is really too small for video viewing.

Once again, the battery extender you can buy it lightweight, and extends the operation of the player another 2.5-3.5 hours.


maybe in your circles, but the general masses? no way. it's not "heavy", but it weighs 2.4lbs, WITHOUT extra battery, and WITHOUT all the discs you need, because, honestly, how far are you going to get with one album?

and you, sirT, are hiding behind the dictionary meaning of "portable", in which case you are correct. But, then again, you are also wrong. Look at it like this: A bicycle is "mobile" too, which means you can get to point A to B, but face it, you're not going to drive 70 miles to work with it every morning, and back home every evening. You are using something more convenient for that.

same with this: it's portable, meaning you can take it from point A to B, but only if you are going by plane (which have screens in the headrest), or in cars (which also have screens in the headrests). You can't go jogging with it (popular use with other MUSIC players), you can't even go out on the street without carrying a bag with you. you can't use it when on a bicycle... YOU CANNOT put it in your pocket, so you are stuck to a bag.

what's the use of that? honestly. Face it. might very well be that it can play high res content (I don't even care it can play movies, and neither does this topic, but that would only get to you if you properly read the title, which clearly states that it is about AUDIO...) I can get an Ipod for about 1/3th of the money I pay for the "portable" blu ray player, it will last longer, hold countless albums, weighs less than half than the blu ray thing, and actually IS "portable", I can literally take it everywhere, as it fits in my pockets.

And I know, you're looking at this, and the first thing that goes through your mind is "but it's low res", well, read the comment above this big big quote)


Maybe not in your neck of the woods, but here in California they are popular as hell. I have one built in my hybrid SUV

well, "in my neck of the woods", they don't. And still, how many of them are high res screens with blu ray players connected to them? AND, how many of the owners and watchers of those built in screens & players actually care that the content is high res?


You won't get HD video in this case, you will just get a 480i signal from that output.

Yeah, again, read the comment above the big big quote here, this topic is about AUDIO. if you want to start a topic about advantages of Blu Ray, I'd be happy to read about it in the home theater section...
and I didn't say there would be quality loss, there will be, just as there will be quality loss with pretty much everything you re-record from a already finished product. As you said, "an uncompressed movie is over 10 terabytes..." and all, compressed on a 50gb blu ray disc, and then re recorded, well, of course there will be quality loss. Especially for average Joe. (well, with your high resolution audio recorder, it might as well just end up sounding the same...)


Been there done that! I even did a blind listening test with my kids(who by the way have excellent ears). They could not tell the vinyl from the digital copy of it. That is the power of 24/192khz audio.

And that is still only an opinion, and I don't know any details about both the playback device (turntable & analog setup), recording device, and actual music & recording played. (important part coming up: ) "IN my opinion", on all the systems & recordings I've heard (maybe while not even nearly as you have heard, but still, a more than respectable number for a guy my age, in price categories of all kinds (and I really do mean: all price categories))

Great discussion by the way!

Thank you!

Regards,
Bert.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
11-30-2010, 02:34 PM
I have no idea really, but one thought comes to mind regarding Apple and Google "working out deals".

They are too big!!!

That really is not the issue at all, these guys don't make movies, or record audio. The problem that Hollywood has with Google and Apple(and Microsoft for that matter) is that they don't value or respect the product. They value their hardware only, and the movies and television shows are treated as after thoughts. The community also thinks that these companies are arrogant as hell. Look at what Google did with Google TV. They released it without even speaking to the content providers, thinking they can just steal the content without signing even a single deal.


These are 2 companies with the potential (capital) to overtake or wipe out the very companies which they seek these deals with. That has to be a scary proposition for those who actually hold the keys to the doors.

Why would they overtake and wipe out the mouth that feeds them? Google and Apple don't make movies, don't produce recordings, and really don't want to get into those areas anyway. What they want is something for nothing, and thats the problem that Hollywood has with these two companies(and Microsoft as well). It does not benefit Hollywood one bit to limit the amount of distribution outlets they have, it benefits them to have more(with DVD going the away it is) which is why Netflix deals are so easily reached.

The studio's make their money making movies and selling discs, just like Apple and Google make their money selling hardware and ads. Apple does not want to harm their hardware sales, so they secure content to prevent that. Google uses youtube to sell ads, and they wanted to get into distributing television content(to sell more ads by the way), but they forgot to talk to the content providers, and are now being locked out because of it.

None of these companies want to get into film and television distribution just for the sake of getting into the business, or because they love film. They want to get into it just to sell more hardware and ads, and the content is just the vehicle that does that. That is why Hollywood prefers to deal with Netflix. They just stream movies and don't push products. They have worked hard to make the movies look as good as they can within the constraints of the infrastructure. They cooperate with the film industry, and that is why Hollywood does not mind working with them. Even Walmart is more respected in the Hollywood community more than those three tech giants. At least with Vudu, they have worked to put the best presentation of the films they stream out there. Hollywood respects that, not some company using their content as a loss leader.


I will also add that bands nowadays have changed their view on the product of music. I don't think any group expects to make money on a release unless you're a super star. It's more about gaining exposure and fans so that when you pull into town, the venue is full and you can sell merch, etc.

Touring is far more lucrative than recording. However you need a recording project to promote on the tour, so recording is a necessary evil. But you are right, they know they are not going to make any money off recordings.


The reality of being an average band today is that you are constantly on the road in order to pay the bills. Plain and simple. This is however a good thing for music lovers because it means the group of your choice will be tighter than a drum.

Bingo! And it is great for audio engineers like myself who occasionally get out on the road with a group just for a change of scenery.


The days of releasing albums and not touring are long over. Perhaps dance music types don't need to, but there's not enough ecstacy in the world to keep me listening to that vapid crap.

One of the biggest trends I am seeing is that bands are doing their own recording projects(outside the studio realm), releasing to Itunes, and then going on the road thereby keeping most of the money, keeping their copyrights, side stepping the record companies and their bull, and still generating a buzz for the recording project. The record companies have pissed on their artists so much, the artists are beginning to take things into their own hands.

Ajani
11-30-2010, 03:17 PM
That really is not the issue at all, these guys don't make movies, or record audio. The problem that Hollywood has with Google and Apple(and Microsoft for that matter) is that they don't value or respect the product. They value their hardware only, and the movies and television shows are treated as after thoughts. The community also thinks that these companies are arrogant as hell. Look at what Google did with Google TV. They released it without even speaking to the content providers, thinking they can just steal the content without signing even a single deal.



Why would they overtake and wipe out the mouth that feeds them? Google and Apple don't make movies, don't produce recordings, and really don't want to get into those areas anyway. What they want is something for nothing, and thats the problem that Hollywood has with these two companies(and Microsoft as well). It does not benefit Hollywood one bit to limit the amount of distribution outlets they have, it benefits them to have more(with DVD going the away it is) which is why Netflix deals are so easily reached.

The studio's make their money making movies and selling discs, just like Apple and Google make their money selling hardware and ads. Apple does not want to harm their hardware sales, so they secure content to prevent that. Google uses youtube to sell ads, and they wanted to get into distributing television content(to sell more ads by the way), but they forgot to talk to the content providers, and are now being locked out because of it.

None of these companies want to get into film and television distribution just for the sake of getting into the business, or because they love film. They want to get into it just to sell more hardware and ads, and the content is just the vehicle that does that. That is why Hollywood prefers to deal with Netflix. They just stream movies and don't push products. They have worked hard to make the movies look as good as they can within the constraints of the infrastructure. They cooperate with the film industry, and that is why Hollywood does not mind working with them. Even Walmart is more respected in the Hollywood community more than those three tech giants. At least with Vudu, they have worked to put the best presentation of the films they stream out there. Hollywood respects that, not some company using their content as a loss leader.

Valid points, though I would ask whether network executives respect their own TV content? Given how quick they are to change time-slots and toss shows with critical acclaim and loyal fan followings, it's really hard to take them seriously...


Touring is far more lucrative than recording. However you need a recording project to promote on the tour, so recording is a necessary evil. But you are right, they know they are not going to make any money off recordings.



Bingo! And it is great for audio engineers like myself who occasionally get out on the road with a group just for a change of scenery.



One of the biggest trends I am seeing is that bands are doing their own recording projects(outside the studio realm), releasing to Itunes, and then going on the road thereby keeping most of the money, keeping their copyrights, side stepping the record companies and their bull, and still generating a buzz for the recording project. The record companies have pissed on their artists so much, the artists are beginning to take things into their own hands.

Here we do agree... Recording companies have been irritating artists for so long, that some would rather give away their music for free on myspace or facebook and then tour, than sign a deal with a label...

I always remember in the early 90's when TLC had the number 1 album in the country with multi-platinum sales and had to file for bankruptcy... From what I remember, the label was getting all the real money and making the group pay the majority of touring and promotion expenses etc..

The only thing that can be somewhat said in defense of the labels is that the real talent behind a hit is not the artist, but the producers and songwriters... Finding a pretty face who can hold a note is easy: just hang around a few high school and church choirs. Finding a producer who can create a number 1 hit is a real challenge...

Of course that defense is not valid against artists who write and produce their own material...

Sir Terrence the Terrible
12-02-2010, 05:45 PM
First off all, let me start with 2 small points:

I read several times now, that you are by no means interested in discussing "low res audio" (I assume that for you, everything less than Blu Ray audio falls under this category...). Well, from your interests point of view, and career, I can somewhat understand that. But I also think that you should "realize", that most of the music in the world is low res content... AND growing, one CANNOT simply rule out the importance of an ipod, and variatons in this world.

I hate to tell you this, but those MP3 files come from a high resolution file. So while the music ENDS UP being low rez, it does not start that way.



Secondly,
As much as we appreciate, or like to discuss, or like to argue about your extensive knowledge about blu ray as a complete format, including movies: this thread is about audio. blu ray AUDIO discs, in your posts, specifically. Which is also another reason why I think the portable blu ray player is a utterly pointless machine as a media/music player...
Regards,
Bert.

So are you saying that portable bluray player cannot play bluray audio disc? Nonsense, that is my portable BR player primary use when I travel. It can even play concert video's without the video if I so choose. Just because it is not something you can put on your pocket, does not mean it has no usefulness. That is short sighted thinking.


Sorry, I stand corrected, but please allow me to rephrase: "store high resolution content, as high resolution as Blu ray"

You are completely wrong on this. 1080i is the highest resolution cable uses, not 1080p with the necessary data rate to reduce the compression. The 1080i video from any cable or satellite system is heavily compressed, and if they apply the 1080p label, the compression would go even higher.


maybe not the ease of putting the disc in (well, I am sure there are some people on this world...). but as soon as there is a menu (even though it's still pressing enter). And when things go wrong (don't think blu ray without any failures, every format has had it's problems, blu ray too). Then we "geeks" come in to help, just as much as you might help your grandparents to set up a media center, and "learn" them how to use it (even though it's not hard at all...)

There is a lot of things to do before you get to the menu of a media center. If your movie collection is disc based(which my grandparents is) then you have to rip the DVD to a computer hard drive, and then transfer that to either a portable hard drive, or a server based system. My grandparents(and most everyone else's) are not going to go through that trouble. Bluray has far fewer failures than a portable or computer based hard drive. I have never had a single Bluray player fail, but I have had two hard drive failures. I never had any of my DVD players fail, and neither has my grandparents and other relatives. When you get older, simplicity rules, not complexity - especially when they are not "geeks".


Where there is money, there is a way. And at this moment, money is at blu ray. If someone really wants, they can protect software on a drive just as well as "with the 2 components"

Oh really. CSS got cracked, ACSS got cracked(we haven't even discussed microvision). All of these are non dynamic software based copy protection systems. The studios realized a long time ago that software based copy protection is far easier to crack than the two component system. The evidence is in the fact that ACSS of Bluray was cracked, but BD+ and BD watermark still have not been.


I spot a very important sentence there: 'I used it all of the time", well, but you're an audio/recording/sound engineer of some kind, and obviously very interested in high resolution content. My cousin is a master university student, and you can obviously see that too, computer gadgets all over the place, even kinda talks the same way...
I'm a film school student, and I also live that way. Most other people, however, simply do not.

Do you really think I am the only person to use a portable Bluray player? I would think not, go to Bluray.com. Anyone that has used a portable DVD or CD player can use a portable Bluray player. What I do for a living has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Can you really advance the argument that only recording engineers use it? They wouldn't sell a lot of them if that was the case, and why put the R&D into the players if you are only going to market them(or sell them) to audio guys. You don't need to be a geek to learn to put a disc in a player, press play, and sit back and watch a movie. My parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles have all used portable Bluray players. There is nothing difficult about using them.


maybe in your circles, but the general masses? no way. it's not "heavy", but it weighs 2.4lbs, WITHOUT extra battery, and WITHOUT all the discs you need, because, honestly, how far are you going to get with one album?

Give me a break Bert. The general masses are buying portable Bluray players, not just audio engineers and gadget geeks. My portable CD player is the same weight as my portable Bluray player. The extra battery weighs an additional one pound. Do you really mean the folks are so weak that they cannot carry 4-5 Bluray titles, a portable player, and a small battery? That is just plain silly.


and you, sirT, are hiding behind the dictionary meaning of "portable", in which case you are correct. But, then again, you are also wrong. Look at it like this: A bicycle is "mobile" too, which means you can get to point A to B, but face it, you're not going to drive 70 miles to work with it every morning, and back home every evening. You are using something more convenient for that.

And you Bert are trying to redefine the word portable. Portable is portable. The dictionary does not make a size declaration. We are not talking mobile, that is a completely different word. What is convenient for you, is probably not for me. I like to listen to high resolution music wherever I go, and can thanks to a portable Bluray player I can. Low resolution audio has its place, as do ipods(I am not going to take my portable Bluray player on a run), but the very idea of saying that something that in total weighs less than 5 pounds is inconvenientt is completely ridiculous.


same with this: it's portable, meaning you can take it from point A to B, but only if you are going by plane (which have screens in the headrest), or in cars (which also have screens in the headrests). You can't go jogging with it (popular use with other MUSIC players), you can't even go out on the street without carrying a bag with you. you can't use it when on a bicycle... YOU CANNOT put it in your pocket, so you are stuck to a bag.

Who gives a damn if you cannot put it in your pocket? I can't put my car in my pocket either! I already address the jogging issue, and since I carry a backpack everywhere I go, you just stick the portable Bluray player in there. I can walk with it, I can ride with it, and I often do. So this angle you are trying does not fly. Is your generation so weak that they cannot carry a small bag that weighs about five pounds?(which includes the player, backup battery, and a few disc).


I can get an Ipod for about 1/3th of the money I pay for the "portable" blu ray player, it will last longer, hold countless albums, weighs less than half than the blu ray thing, and actually IS "portable", I can literally take it everywhere, as it fits in my pockets.

Portable is not defined by what you can put in your pocket. Give that up right now. I don't listen to countless albums, I listen to them one at a time. Even with my ipod, I never get to more than two albums going from one place to the next, that is another red herring. When I travel, I take 2-3 disc, and I never get through all of them. You do not know the life of a portable Bluray player, nobody does. I have two Ipods that have quit working after a few years of use - my portable CD and DVD players have lasted longer. You are overselling your point, especially since you don't own a portable Bluray player. How can you make all of these statements without actually owning one?


well, "in my neck of the woods", they don't. And still, how many of them are high res screens with blu ray players connected to them? AND, how many of the owners and watchers of those built in screens & players actually care that the content is high res?

So because "in your neck of the woods" they don't, that invalidates it? I think not. The purpose is not to necessarily view the movies on high definition screens, the purpose is that you don't have to carry multiple formats of disc when you are traveling in your car.


Yeah, again, read the comment above the big big quote here, this topic is about AUDIO.

Then your probably should not have said this
if I get a blu ray player, connect the analog line out, to the analog line in on my PC, and I press "record" on the pc, or on something else, a CDR recorder, for example, or basically, everything that records, IT WILL RECORD,

If you know anything about a bluray player, you cannot just connect "A" line from the player to the pc. If you use the stereo connectors to the PC you get 16/44.1khz audio. What's the point of that when the CD already carries that. The bottom line is you cannot just transfer 5.1 high resolution audio without HDMI, and HDMI will not allow copying the audio from disc to PC.


And that is still only an opinion, and I don't know any details about both the playback device (turntable & analog setup), recording device, and actual music & recording played. (important part coming up: ) "IN my opinion", on all the systems & recordings I've heard (maybe while not even nearly as you have heard, but still, a more than respectable number for a guy my age, in price categories of all kinds (and I really do mean: all price categories))

It is a tested opinion, as opposed to somebody just making comments about something they don't own. Knowing the DETAILS about something means nothing in this case, any turntable will work from the high end, to low budget USB turntables. My recorder has every connection imaginable, so you could just take the analog outputs from the turntable, and plug it directly into the recorder. It digitizes the signal at any resolution from redbook to 24/192khz.

E-Stat
12-03-2010, 07:26 AM
I don't listen to countless albums, I listen to them one at a time. Even with my ipod, I never get to more than two albums going from one place to the next, that is another red herring. When I travel, I take 2-3 disc, and I never get through all of them.
I think you'll find that others have different listening habits. As an early CD-Diskman adopter from years ago, I was always annoyed at the limited variety afforded in a portable environment. As for me, I never listen to album content straight through using my iPhone. Instead, I use shuffle or create playlists. Why limit yourself? I agree, however, that the movie domain is quite different. That's why folks buy portable BR players. Schlepping a couple of disks that you know you'll watch all the way through makes sense. Having said that, I'm not sure the added resolution on a small screen is worth the trouble. Most frequent device I see used for watching movies on an airplane? Smartphones. You're carrying them anyway and they do a lot more than just play a movie.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
12-14-2010, 10:28 AM
I think you'll find that others have different listening habits. As an early CD-Diskman adopter from years ago, I was always annoyed at the limited variety afforded in a portable environment. As for me, I never listen to album content straight through using my iPhone. Instead, I use shuffle or create playlists. Why limit yourself? I agree, however, that the movie domain is quite different. That's why folks buy portable BR players. Schlepping a couple of disks that you know you'll watch all the way through makes sense. Having said that, I'm not sure the added resolution on a small screen is worth the trouble. Most frequent device I see used for watching movies on an airplane? Smartphones. You're carrying them anyway and they do a lot more than just play a movie.

rw

The reason I carry my portable BR player is not only for movies, but to support the over 150+ high resolution music titles I have in my collection. Unlike my portable CD player, the BR player is so lightweight, I don't really notice it is there. I do listen to albums all the way through, I don't shuffle my music very often.

There is no way in hell I could watch a movie on a smartphone. The screen is too small which leads to eye strain within an hour. It really does not matter to me that the added resolution of BR is lost on the smaller screen, that is not a big deal for me. The big deal for me is I am not 100% Bluray(no DVD here anymore), and having a portable BR player means I never have to pull out a DVD again to watch movies while travelling. 3/4 of my entire DVD collection is now on a server, and the discs are in my media library. I have not touched a DVD disc in years, and do not plan to either.