Music You Can See: Warner Plans to Sell Albums on DVD

[Teutatis]

By ETHAN SMITH
August 4, 2006; Page A11

The music industry has for years struggled to develop a new physical format that could spark increased sales by replacing the CD. Now Warner Music Group Corp. is planning an aggressive attempt to address the issue by pushing consumers to buy their music on specially outfitted DVDs.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115465756406526611-zDVoC9gVjKN5To_wGw0adS3BwwU_...html?mod=blogs

[drjtech]

I like the DualDisc concept and I've purchased several since they are the same price as standard CDs. I'm not sure I'll buy "DVD albums" if they cost much more than a standard CD. In fact, I have purchased some music video DVDs that cost less than the album on CD. Go figure.

-drjtech

[ROF]

This is great news for any music fans. You can make one purchase and get audio, video, and tons of extras all on one disc. Professionally pre-ripped audio tracks for those needing portability too.

The only downfall to this format is the same as MP3 discs. There are quite a few people still using old CD players that are not capable of reading these discs. I own a few of those but fortunately most of my music at home is listened to via a DVD player or network based anyways.

[Wile_E]

Compressed audio? It won't go with the audiophiles. That's one reason why DVD-Audio never made it. Audiophiles want PCM uncompressed, like regular CD. Give a format that is uncompressed 1:1 with the original studio masters(currently up to 24bit/192KHz), and the audiophiles will buy it like crazy.

[ROF]

Compressed audio? It won't go with the audiophiles.

Tell that to every iPod music loving guru.

[RottenFoxBreath]

"But there are some stumbling blocks that may discourage consumers from embracing DVD albums. The new discs would not play on normal CD players, meaning consumers could not simply pop their new discs into their car stereos or other players. And users would not be able to copy the main audio mix onto their computers. On the proposed DVD album, the main audio mix is to be protected by the same software that already protects the content on normal DVDs."

yeh sure........if it can be played,it can be ripped.

[ROF]

These DVDs also include pre-ripped tracks which you can copy over to other formats. My car stereo is a DVD player so I could readily listen to or as a passenger watch my music.

[RottenFoxBreath]

it wont catch on..itll die off like other pointless audio formats.

[MOVIEGEEK]

"The CD is getting old and tired," said Jim Litwak, president and chief operating officer of Trans World Entertainment Corp., which owns more than 800 music and media stores"

No it's the music they are producing now that's old and tired.
I also like the DualDisc but they are hard to find and have a limited selection.

[Cornucopia]

Compressed audio? It won't go with the audiophiles.

Tell that to every iPod music loving guru.

iPod "mega-song-o-phile" or "musico-phile" isn't really the same thing as audiophile. They're (audiophiles) a bunch of tech-conscious, but not tech-centric, folk who expect the music reproduction chain to be totally transparent--from sound generation...all the way to their ears. Very uncompromising.

Wile_E was right. Audiophiles (whom I'd like to be considered among, but don't have the money or energy to expend at this time in my life) are turned off by compressed audio--probably even more than listening to lower fidelity analog audio.

DVD-Audio and SACD are acceptable to them specifically because they're uncompressed. The audio on DVD-Video IS NOT, and so they're not happy with it.

Scott

[ROF]

Compressed audio? It won't go with the audiophiles.

Tell that to every iPod music loving guru.

DVD-Audio and SACD are acceptable to them specifically because they're uncompressed. The audio on DVD-Video IS NOT, and so they're not happy with it.

Obviously this is not even coming close to marketing to such a small and niche market that by it's own admission can not support it's own formats(ie. DVD-Audio or SACD) both of which have floundered in the marketplace. Compressed audio is on normal CDs, compressed audio is on iPods and available for download, compressed audio is on DVD and quess what? All those formats have sold like fresh baked bread. The audiophile is a thing of the past or more appropriately a market so small manufacturers can not support them. The future is compressed audio. Like or not, it's the truth.

Oddly enough, most people I know who own such niche equipment and consider themselves audiophiles also own a fully loaded iPod.

[oldandinthe way]

Hard to believe that ROF and I are in agreement. The Ipod has demonstrated that audio quality is irrelevant.

The folks at Warner have probably run out of dope and may be clear thinking for the first time in years.

The record industry has pretty well screwed up CD marketing for years. Already a performance DVD from an artist costs less than a CD of the performance in many cases. CD's are a lousy value, hence the appeal of lower quality MP3 downloads of a single track.

A DVD based music offering with additional content, at prices no higher than current CD prices (currently too high) might increase their retail sales, it certainly won't hurt them.

Sensible owners of car CD players already make backups of their CDs so ripping and creating audio CDs will probably help avoid any loss of sales for that reason/

[ROF]

Hard to believe that ROF and I are in agreement. The Ipod has demonstrated that audio quality is irrelevant.

Even harder to believe is just a few months ago Cornucopia and I were in a discussion about the fact that there is an audible difference between MP3 files and professionally mastered audio CDs. Cornucopia was saying that when encoded properly and at a high bit rate nobody could tell the difference which as anyone with ears knows is a lie at best. I guess two months makes a difference in what is recognizably different audibly to the listener.

[dphirschler]

As much as I want to see this format take off, I'm not ready to see the demise of CD audio. I do think it looks interesting and am eager to see what kind of offerings WB makes through this format. Where will it fit on the shelves though? Amonsts the CD or DVD? Or in its own section? If the latter is the case, then it will probably fail.


Darryl

[oldandinthe way]

True audiophiles continue to listen on vinyl. It took me years to have my hearing deteriorate enough so CDs met my needs quite adequately.

If I had a music player with no audio control I could probably reach the point where MP3s were as good as I could hear in just a couple of months.

[oldandinthe way]

dphirschler

Many retailers display their music DVDs on the high shelves of the CD racks. Making their value superiority evident. I'd expect this to continue.

[ViRaL1]

The CD is far from old and tired. The key would be to put more value IN the CDs released now. Most newer artists don't even come close to filling a CD let alone filling it with quality music. I also like DualDisc but as was mentioned before, selection is very limited.

[ROF]

Most newer artists don't even come close to filling a CD let alone filling it with quality music.

The days when albums required one good song after another in order to sell went wayward the day some jerk gave the listener a button with a label that has two arrows side by side.

[Cornucopia]

Hard to believe that ROF and I are in agreement. The Ipod has demonstrated that audio quality is irrelevant.

Even harder to believe is just a few months ago Cornucopia and I were in a discussion about the fact that there is an audible difference between MP3 files and professionally mastered audio CDs. Cornucopia was saying that when encoded properly and at a high bit rate nobody could tell the difference which as anyone with ears knows is a lie at best. I guess two months makes a difference in what is recognizably different audibly to the listener.

How quickly they forget!...

For all who weren't part of that thread, here it is: https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=280445

And here's a quote from one of my later posts in reply to something you wrote:

You really must not be paying attention. No one has said that MP3 is identical to Uncompressed audio, except maybe you when you are "paraphrasing" someone else's post.

Here's how it works:
1. LPCM ("Uncompressed") audio is the "standard".
2. Losslessly compressed audio (monkey's, zip, etc) is BIT FOR BIT IDENTICAL to uncompressed, upon decompression. But it doesn't compress that much (~2.2:1 is good)
3. Lossy compressed audio is NEVER BIT FOR BIT IDENTICAL to uncompressed (upon decompression), but because of the nifty psychoacoustic methods used, it doesn't matter--it doesn't have to be. At or near the highest bitrates available to the compressed format (be it MP3, AC3, DTS, AAC, etc), it is INDISTINGUISHABLE fromUuncompressed to the VAST majority of people. I'm talking ~99%. Not 100%? Nope, statistical testing doesn't really work that way.

Can you distinguish it? You say you can, but won't submit to a blind or double-blind test, so your argument is weak. And from your past posts, I'm not sure I'd put you in the "Golden Ears" category. Most of them are long-time professional musicians and audio engineers, who have been TRAINED to be able to recognize differences in tonality.

You can take the test and talk about it, or not. But if you don't and don't have a better/more scientific alternative, you shouldn't bash it like you have been doing.

(Underlines recently added for emphasis to this thread)

Note, that (once again) that thread was referring to highest bitrate compressed files being realistically transparent---NOT what one sees on the great majority of iPods (usually 64-192kbps). Of course there's a difference then. Almost everyone can tell a difference at that point! (Excepting your hard of hearing folks)

And note that the old post said 99%. Not 100. Guess what, most "audiophiles" might even be considered to be that last 1%.

I understand that you seem to like trolling ROF, but don't start putting words in my mouth. I have a good memory.
And there's no need to disparage the audiophile market. It's doing quite fine, thank you, without any need to become "mass market".

Scott

[akrako1]

I'll be very happy to someday find a cheap DVD-MP3 portable audio player or car deck. I've got 100's of gigs of MP3's, and would like to be able to listen to them off my existing storage media. DVD-R is my most economical way for backing up MP3's.

[ROF]

@Cornucopia

Indistinguishable . . . denying the fact that there is a difference and can be heard . . . sorry if I put words in your mouth but they essentially mean the same thing.

From your quote, I see you still are under the belief that barely no one can tell the difference. Check the thread you quoted. I was not the only one who can hear the difference. I would say in that thread alone there is more than a 1% of the posters, now take that and multiply those findings by everyone who has ever heard both audio compressions and can tell the difference. The figure jumps up into the double digits who can tell the difference.

Just based on your own quoted thread you have proven that there is a difference and it is noticeable by more than 1% of the population. Tests conclusions solely based in the internet are at best a stretch of the truth in favor of the viewpoint of the author. No test needed really. There is a difference and it can be heard by alot of people who casually listen to music.

The difference between an audiophile and "mega-song-o-phile" or "musico-phile" is the later simply enjoys music where as the former has to have it perfect or won't enjoy themselves. Both can hear the difference between an MP3 and an original master, but the biggest and best difference is the "mega-song-o-phile" or "musico-phile" is listening to the music and not anal-yzing it!

I don't think WB is marketing this to audio-philes. Only people who enjoy music and extra content from their purchased artists.

[Wile_E]

Compressed audio is on normal CDs, compressed audio is on iPods and available for download, compressed audio is on DVD and quess what? All those formats have sold like fresh baked bread. The audiophile is a thing of the past or more appropriately a market so small manufacturers can not support them. The future is compressed audio. Like or not, it's the truth.

Oddly enough, most people I know who own such niche equipment and consider themselves audiophiles also own a fully loaded iPod.

Oops. Call me a noob! DVD-Audio uses LPCM which is lossless and uncompressed. But why do you say that normal CD's are compressed? They use PCM 16bit/44.1KHz which was how all masters were digitally mastered over the first few years. Now the industry has gone to 24bit/192KHz, so now they have to downsample to CD. But I wouldn't call downsampling, "compressed". It is not as lossy as AC-3/MP2/MP3.

[Cornucopia]

It was either a typo, or he doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's referring to those "Rootkit"-type CD's that he loves so much that have compressed & DRM'd versions of the song in the Data portion of the disc.
You pick...

:P

Scott

[lumis]

How quickly they forget!...

For all who weren't part of that thread, here it is: https://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=280445

I'm not going to forget that thread. The lengths at which everyone proved that ROF was a dumbass were beautiful.

Thanks for digging that up and throwing it in his face.

Audio CD-R's sound better than Data CD-R's

And then he tried to change the arguement over to MP3/OGG/ETC vs Loseless and how NO MATTER WHAT, he could hear the difference.

Thanks for bring that to peoples attention.

ROF

[ROF]

It was either a typo, or he doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's referring to those "Rootkit"-type CD's that he loves so much that have compressed & DRM'd versions of the song in the Data portion of the disc.
You pick...

There you go again with lies and slander. I no more like rootkit discs then the next person. I actually got caught up in Sony's holiday rootkit fiasco. I don't have any more time for your idiocy.

You are an audiophile who believes a well recorded MP3 is indistinguishable from a master track. Odd, but I guess everyone has have their own opinion.

[lumis]

There you go again with lies and slander. I no more like rootkit discs then the next person. I actually got caught up in Sony's holiday rootkit fiasco. I don't have any more time for your idiocy.

You are an audiophile who believes a well recorded MP3 is indistinguishable from a master track. Odd, but I guess everyone has have their own opinion.

Wrong again, idiot. It's not slander, it's LIBEL.

ROF

[NiteLite]

Compressed audio? It won't go with the audiophiles. That's one reason why DVD-Audio never made it. Audiophiles want PCM uncompressed, like regular CD. Give a format that is uncompressed 1:1 with the original studio masters(currently up to 24bit/192KHz), and the audiophiles will buy it like crazy.

DVD-Audio is not compressed unless you are listening to the DD/DTS format.
The true DVD-Audio is high resolution unconpressed analog 6-channel sound that must use the analog external input of the receiver with 6 cables output to the receiver from the player (unless you have the one input connect.) I prefer the seperate cables.
The hardware and software manufactures should be slapped for coming up with a superior sound over the CD and then refusing to promote it.

DVD-A and SACD may be on life support but it's NOT dead. This has been incorrectly reported so many times here. I and many others still buy both formats and enjoy listening to the superior analog uncompressed sound. If enough people would have purchased DVD-DVD-A or DVD-SACD or combo players instead of the latest $29.99 walmart crap the formats may have been in better supply.
But seriously, how can people not knowing about the DVD-A and SACD formats buy when NONE of those in production of the hardware OR software spent more than pocket change on promotion.
The two channle sound is still there on these disc for those with two speaker setups. So it was a no lose scenario.
This may go down as the worst "oops" ever for those that like true uncompressed sound
Everyone should at least hear it if not buy it.
It is not a dead format...yet!

Give a format that is uncompressed 1:1 with the original studio masters(currently up to 24bit/192KHz), and the audiophiles will buy it like crazy.

That's exactly what DVD-A / SACD is. So where are all the buyers?
I bought my DVD-A when it first appeared and my SACD shorly after. How many are buying it now?
Too bad so many who claimed to want the ultimate sound available really didn't.
(The above reply is not directed at any one person! Just a general rant.)
Regards,
NL

[SingSing]

I prefer vinyl record.

[greymalkin]

NL,

I agree that dvd-audio and SACD do sound vastly superior to cd. I just have one slight correction: DVD-Audio and SACD's are not analog. They are just more accurate digital representations of the original recording. You have to use the analog cables to transfer to your receiver because it cannnot decode the raw digital information. The dvd-audio/SACD player has to do that (in most cases, I know there are some high end receivers that can use a digital connection).

But even in stereo the sacd and dvd-audio albums do improve the imaging/transparency of the music.

[Cornucopia]

There you go again with lies and slander. I no more like rootkit discs then the next person. I actually got caught up in Sony's holiday rootkit fiasco. I don't have any more time for your idiocy.

You are an audiophile who believes a well recorded MP3 is indistinguishable from a master track. Odd, but I guess everyone has have their own opinion.

No, it was just a sarcastic jibe, basically a petty response to your "lies and slander" at me, which you continue to sling.

"Methinks thou dost protest too much"


BTW, Some opinions are more based in reality than others.

Scott