http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4007866/

"DVD-Audio and SACD fail to impress electronics consumers"
"The appeal to consumers was supposed to be better and more lifelike sound
quality. The appeal to music companies was supposed to be a new digital
format that consumers couldn't Napster-ize or cheaply copy so it could be
sent across the Internet to all their friends."
Of course this is all ********. Not only didn't the new formats necessarily
sound better, in scientific tests they repeatedly failed to sound any
different. Furthermore, nothing technically inhibits napsterizing music
recorded on in the new DVD-A or SACD but larger file sizes.
"But instead, two newish audio media formats, DVD-Audio and SACD (short for
"super audio compact disc"), seem to be stuck at the starting gate. Rather
than replacing the enormously successful CD, these two formats are starting
to look like two Next Big Things that may never find a place in tomorrow's
all-digital, relentlessly networked living room."
No doubt an allusion to the fact that all DVD-A and SACD players lack
industry-standard digital interfaces that can work with existing
high-sample-rate, high resolution equipment.
Now here is the really damning part of the story:
"During the six-month period ending in June 2003, only 100,000 DVD-Audio
discs were sold, compared with 245 million CDs, the Recording Industry
Association of America reports. Even traditional vinyl records outsold
DVD-Audio -- by a factor of six to one"
Which begs the question, when these formats will be abandoned by
increasingly cost-conscious corporate supporters?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


With line breaks put back in...

how did that happen?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4007866/

"DVD-Audio and SACD fail to impress electronics consumers"

"The appeal to consumers was supposed to be better and more lifelike
sound quality. The appeal to music companies was supposed to be a new
digital format that consumers couldn't Napster-ize or cheaply copy so
it could be sent across the Internet to all their friends."

Of course this is all ********. Not only didn't the new formats
necessarily sound better, in scientific tests they repeatedly failed
to sound any different. Furthermore, nothing technically inhibits
napsterizing music recorded on in the new DVD-A or SACD but larger
file sizes.

"But instead, two newish audio media formats, DVD-Audio
and SACD (short for "super audio compact disc"), seem to be stuck at
the starting gate. Rather than replacing the enormously successful
CD, these two formats are starting to look like two Next Big Things
that may never find a place in tomorrow's all-digital, relentlessly
networked living room."

No doubt an allusion to the fact that all
DVD-A and SACD players lack industry-standard digital interfaces that
can work with existing high-sample-rate, high resolution equipment.

Now here is the really damning part of the story:

"During the six-month period ending in June 2003, only 100,000
DVD-Audio discs were sold, compared with 245 million CDs, the
Recording Industry Association of America reports. Even traditional
vinyl records outsold DVD-Audio -- by a factor of six to one"

Which begs the question, when these formats will be abandoned by
increasingly cost-conscious corporate supporters?

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message


On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:36:36 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Of course this is all ********. Not only didn't the new formats
necessarily sound better, in scientific tests they repeatedly failed
to sound any different.

Care to back yet another outrageous allegation with some facts for a
change, Mr. Krüger?

Asked and answered, many, many times. It's really simple François. You,
someone, or the recording industry needs to deliver for free public
audition, a regular high-bitrate music recording, one that people in general
reliably identify as sounding different from the same recording downsampled
to CD format, in some kind of level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled
listening test.

Just one such recording will make things really interesting.

Right now, zero such recordings are known to exist. In contrast, many
counter-examples are known to exist. I've personally given away thousands of
them. So have others. That's not how we planned it, but that's how it
happens.

Now here is the really damning part of the story:
"During the six-month period ending in June 2003, only 100,000
DVD-Audio discs were sold, compared with 245 million CDs, the
Recording Industry Association of America reports. Even traditional
vinyl records outsold DVD-Audio -- by a factor of six to one"

Damning? Nope.

Yep. We should recall that about a year ago Warner Brothers management
announced a far-reaching project to convert much of their legacy library to
DVD-A.

http://www.hometheatermag.com/bootcamp/152/

Towards the end of the same year we hear about Warner Music being unloaded:

http://www.iht.com/articles/119053.html

Thank you for confirming that vinyl is alive and doing well! It's a niche
product, most of which ends up helping people dance. We're not talking about
serious listening, here.

I wouldn't call less than 1% of its former market share "alive and well".

BTW, the same "article" states that the "The [Rolling Stones SA-CD]
reissues sold about 2 million copies". Hmmm. One series of reissues
on SA-CD selling twenty times more than all DVD-A's combined.

The key here is that the SACD re-issues were fully audio CD player
compatible. Ironically, even though they are DVDs, they don't actually
exploit any of the enhanced features of virtually all DVD players now in
existence.

Oh, and a single European pressing plant, Sonopress in Gütersloh (DE),
produces 800 000 SA-CDs per month.

2002 stats show 800 million audio CDs sold per year, or about 70 million
per month. 800,000 SACDs per month amount to about 1.4 % of that. Since most
or all of them are compatible with regular audio CD players, it's highly
dangerous to presume that any number of their high-resolution layers are
actively being played.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:25:49 +0100, François Yves Le Gal
wrote:

2002 stats show 800 million audio CDs sold per year, or about 70 million
per month. 800,000 SACDs per month amount to about 1.4 % of that.

Fallacious argument, at best. The figure is for *ONE* pressing plant, you
compare it to global stats for all CD manufacturing plants.

That wasn't the only one. He tried to imply linkage between the
archiving of material at Warner on a "hi-rez" format with their
purchase by another group of investors.

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 08:44:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Care to back yet another outrageous allegation with some facts for a
change, Mr. Krüger?

Asked and answered, many, many times. It's really simple François.

Yes, it's really simple: you can't back your outrageous allegation
except by repeating the same mantra again and again.

The so-called mantra is "show me the beef". I've been asking this question
for years, and by implication so have the consumers. No beef, no joy.

Thank you for confirming that vinyl is alive and doing well!

It's a niche
product, most of which ends up helping people dance. We're not
talking about serious listening, here.

Well, Lee Gomes of the Wall Street Journal begs to disagree with you
(as do every sane music lover on this planet, but that's another
story):

"By now, I was having the "Am I on the same planet?" feeling one often
gets around physicists or wine buffs. I had encoded these MP3s myself,
from my own CDs, at high bit rates for maximum quality. To my ears,
the music was paralyzingly beautiful. I frankly didn't understand what
the problem was.

Sensing my confusion, Mr. Kuzma offered to help. He would play, on his
turntable, Dave Brubeck's "Take Five," a song I also had on my iPod,
and we could compare the two. From my iPod, the music certainly
sounded OK, but it seemed to live in a box that was a few feet wide
and a few inches deep. With the LP, though, the sounds became
three-dimensional, each of them inhabiting what seemed, with my eyes
closed, to be a big, throbbing sphere.

Wow this is an amazingly fair comparison. Listening to an iPod over
headphones and listening to a LP over speakers. All relevant variables other
than the MP3 coding have been held constant, eh? And, if you expect us to
believe these ******** your name must be "François Yves Le Gal"

"Can you hear how, on the MP3, it sounds like the music has a blanket
over it?" Mr. Kuzma asked. Yes, indeed, I could."

Obviously the comparison involved many relevant variables, while the results
were ascribed to just one of them. Bad science or what?

From the WSJ, Jan 19th edition. As their on-line content is reserved
to their subscribers, he's a link to a recent rahe article publishing
the article in full:

One reason why Scientific American didn't close their doors when the WSJ
opened theirs...

The key here

... Is that SA-CD's sell in millions, something you refuse to
acknowledge, resorting to your usual obfuscating tactics.

Oh, and a single European pressing plant, Sonopress in Gütersloh
(DE), produces 800 000 SA-CDs per month.

2002 stats show 800 million audio CDs sold per year, or about 70
million per month. 800,000 SACDs per month amount to about 1.4 % of
that.

Fallacious argument, at best. The figure is for *ONE* pressing plant,
you compare it to global stats for all CD manufacturing plants.

Look François you get to cite any statistics you have. When you've got
something better to share, be sure to do so.

Anyway, SA-CD is still a high end system, not a mass market one. You
can't expect to see today the same volumes as CD.

Never said I did. However, it's been 3 years or more since the introduction
of SACD. It obviously hasn't taken the world by storm like the original
DVD-video did. Something about the difference in perceived benefits, I'd
say.

It's really simple François. You,
someone, or the recording industry needs to deliver for free public
audition, a regular high-bitrate music recording, one that people in general
reliably identify as sounding different from the same recording downsampled
to CD format, in some kind of level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled
listening test.

Just one such recording will make things really interesting.

Interesting to a group of about 20 people. A far larger number of people have
already expressed a preference for SACDs based on informal, uncontroled
comparisons. Whether or not you like it, that is good enough for most
consumers. I haven't really been following the format wars of late but I would
suspect that it will take inexpensive portable players and autochangers for the
car for SACD or DVD audio to take off. That is what it took for CDs to take
off. It is what the average consumer really wants. Convenience and portability.
The fact is most consumers are quite satisfied with MP3. mOst casual music
listeners are not audiophiles. It is a niche market and always has been.

The so-called mantra is "show me the beef". I've been asking this question
for years, and by implication so have the consumers. No beef, no joy.

It is "show me the money." Or it is "where's the beef?"

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


It's really simple François. You,
someone, or the recording industry needs to deliver for free public
audition, a regular high-bitrate music recording, one that people in
general reliably identify as sounding different from the same
recording downsampled to CD format, in some kind of level-matched,
time-synched, bias-controlled listening test.

Just one such recording will make things really interesting.

Interesting to a group of about 20 people. A far larger number of
people have already expressed a preference for SACDs based on
informal, uncontroled comparisons. Whether or not you like it, that
is good enough for most consumers.

Which is why we have influential national publications publishing articles
entitled:

"DVD-Audio and SACD fail to impress electronics consumers"

It's all that pent-up consumer interest in DVD-A and SACD that stimulated
the author to write, and the editor to publish such an article.

I haven't really been following
the format wars of late but I would suspect that it will take
inexpensive portable players and autochangers for the car for SACD or
DVD audio to take off.

Consumer interest has nothing to do with it, right?

That is what it took for CDs to take off.

No it isn't. And it isn't what it took for DVD-V to take off.

The autochanger thing has to be one of the worst red herrings in recent RAO
history,and that's saying quite a bit. Why do you need a changer with media
that already plays for a couple of hours from a single disc? The answer is
that you don't. And you said autochangers for the car? That's totally
unreal.

It is what the average consumer really wants. Convenience and
portability.

Well, compared to what? The pre-existing format for DVD-V was VHS tape,
which was already reasonably convenient. Ironically, DVD-V's popularity was
based on picture and sound quality.

It wasn't true for the CD which took maybe a decade for player prices to
come down to those of the average turntable, and for which it took years and
years for portable players including auto players to become popular.

It wasn't true for the DVD which took off while DVD player prices were
substantially higher than average CD and VHS player prices, and when there
really was no such thing as a viable portable player that sold in any kind
of serious volume.

The fact is most consumers are quite satisfied with MP3.

Now finally sockpuppet, you say something that makes a little sense.

Most casual music listeners are not audiophiles. It is a niche market
and always has been.

Problem is, the audiophile market is too tiny of a niche to support two
formats that could only possibly be interesting to audiophiles. SACD and
DVD-A could be interesting formats if they actually sounded better, but of
course they don't.

With DVD-A and SACD you've got two solutions looking for a problem that
neither of them adequately solves, duking it out in a niche marketplace. Be
still my heart!

Arny said


It's really simple François. You,
someone, or the recording industry needs to deliver for free public
audition, a regular high-bitrate music recording, one that people in
general reliably identify as sounding different from the same
recording downsampled to CD format, in some kind of level-matched,
time-synched, bias-controlled listening test.

Just one such recording will make things really interesting.

I said


Interesting to a group of about 20 people. A far larger number of
people have already expressed a preference for SACDs based on
informal, uncontroled comparisons. Whether or not you like it, that
is good enough for most consumers.

Arny said


Which is why we have influential national publications publishing articles
entitled:

"DVD-Audio and SACD fail to impress electronics consumers"

I addressed that issue later on in my post. Most consumers are interested in
convenience and portability not sound quality. So yeah, DVD Audio and SACD are
not likely to impress electronic consumers. They offer no advantage in
convenience or portability. They are clearly aimed at a small niche market.


Arny said



It's all that pent-up consumer interest in DVD-A and SACD that stimulated
the author to write, and the editor to publish such an article.

What are you trying to say?


I said


I haven't really been following
the format wars of late but I would suspect that it will take
inexpensive portable players and autochangers for the car for SACD or
DVD audio to take off.

Arny said


Consumer interest has nothing to do with it, right?


It has everything to do with it. Most *consumers* are *interested* in formats
that maximize convenience and portability. CD is still way ahead in those
respects.

I said




That is what it took for CDs to take off.


Arny said


No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Arny said

And it isn't what it took for DVD-V to take off.

I didn't say it was.You are comparing apples to oranges. People are used to
watching video at home so it should be no surprise that DVDs were able to do
well before they became so portable. But the fact is they are quite convenient
and quite portable. I am confident that this has helped the success of that
medium.


Arny said



The autochanger thing has to be one of the worst red herrings in recent RAO
history,and that's saying quite a bit. Why do you need a changer with media
that already plays for a couple of hours from a single disc?

Because commercial discs rarely have a couple hours of material on them.

Arny said


The answer is
that you don't.

Wrong answer.


Arny said


And you said autochangers for the car? That's totally
unreal.

Hardly. But certainly CD players for the car were a major factor for the
success of CDs even before autochangers were available. Convenience and
portability.

I said


It is what the average consumer really wants. Convenience and
portability.


Arny said


Well, compared to what?

Inconvenience and nonportability.


Arny said


The pre-existing format for DVD-V was VHS tape,
which was already reasonably convenient.

Which has what to do with the topic of DVD Audio and SACD?

Arny said


Ironically, DVD-V's popularity was
based on picture and sound quality.

I would say there were other factors. Laser Disc already had VHS clearly beat
in quality and that format has died.

Arny said



It wasn't true for the CD which took maybe a decade for player prices to
come down to those of the average turntable,

No. They were available pretty much right away.

Arny said

and for which it took years and
years for portable players including auto players to become popular.

No. It took a few years for them to become avialable. As soon as they were
affordable to the average consumer they took off in popularity. Coincidentally
(not really a coincidence IMO) that was when the CD format took off as well.


Arny said


It wasn't true for the DVD which took off while DVD player prices were
substantially higher than average CD and VHS player prices, and when there
really was no such thing as a viable portable player that sold in any kind
of serious volume.

Which still has nothing to do with DVD Audio or SACD. Yeah, DVD came around at
a good time when home theater became interesting to more consumers.

I said


The fact is most consumers are quite satisfied with MP3.

Arny said


Now finally sockpuppet, you say something that makes a little sense.


Everything I said has made sense whether you agree with it or not.

I said



Most casual music listeners are not audiophiles. It is a niche market
and always has been.

Arny said


Problem is, the audiophile market is too tiny of a niche to support two
formats that could only possibly be interesting to audiophiles. SACD and
DVD-A could be interesting formats if they actually sounded better, but of
course they don't.

It may be true that the market is too small to support all the formats. That
has nothing to do with whether or not they offer any improvement in
performance. If consumers believe they offer an improvement it doesn't matter
if a handful of people disagree. Audiophiles have been raving about the
improvements they hear from both new formats. Whether or not that is from a
real difference in the formats themselves or a difference in the mastering of
the titles or even an imagined difference it is of no consequence to the sales
of titles in these formats. The perception is what matters.


Arny said


With DVD-A and SACD you've got two solutions looking for a problem that
neither of them adequately solves, duking it out in a niche marketplace. Be
still my heart!

Yours is only one opinion. You may be right though that the audiophile market
may simply be too small to support the formats. Time will tell. It doesn't seem
to take a large market to support the audio vinyl niche. That is still enjoying
a substantial reniassance much to my delight.

Oh No!

Run away! The Holy Wars of Audio have restarted!

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
It's really simple François. You,
someone, or the recording industry needs to deliver for free public
audition, a regular high-bitrate music recording, one that people in
general
reliably identify as sounding different from the same recording
downsampled
to CD format, in some kind of level-matched, time-synched,
bias-controlled
listening test.

Just one such recording will make things really interesting.

Interesting to a group of about 20 people. A far larger number of people
have
already expressed a preference for SACDs based on informal, uncontroled
comparisons.

Which are therefore meaningless.

Whether or not you like it, that is good enough for most
consumers.

Other than when the music is mixed for surround sound, I can't tell any
difference between SACD and CD.

I haven't really been following the format wars of late but I would
suspect that it will take inexpensive portable players and autochangers
for the
car for SACD or DVD audio to take off. That is what it took for CDs to
take
off.

The format took off therefore there were inexpensive portable players, not
the other way round.

It is what the average consumer really wants. Convenience and portability.

CD's took off because they sound better and they take up less space than an
LP. Mostly sounding better accounted for their popularity.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
Arny said


It's really simple François. You,
someone, or the recording industry needs to deliver for free public
audition, a regular high-bitrate music recording, one that people in
general reliably identify as sounding different from the same
recording downsampled to CD format, in some kind of level-matched,
time-synched, bias-controlled listening test.

Just one such recording will make things really interesting.

I said


Interesting to a group of about 20 people. A far larger number of
people have already expressed a preference for SACDs based on
informal, uncontroled comparisons. Whether or not you like it, that
is good enough for most consumers.

Arny said


Which is why we have influential national publications publishing
articles
entitled:

"DVD-Audio and SACD fail to impress electronics consumers"

I addressed that issue later on in my post. Most consumers are interested
in
convenience and portability not sound quality. So yeah, DVD Audio and SACD
are
not likely to impress electronic consumers. They offer no advantage in
convenience or portability. They are clearly aimed at a small niche
market.


Arny said



It's all that pent-up consumer interest in DVD-A and SACD that stimulated
the author to write, and the editor to publish such an article.

What are you trying to say?


I said


I haven't really been following
the format wars of late but I would suspect that it will take
inexpensive portable players and autochangers for the car for SACD or
DVD audio to take off.

Arny said


Consumer interest has nothing to do with it, right?


It has everything to do with it. Most *consumers* are *interested* in
formats
that maximize convenience and portability. CD is still way ahead in those
respects.

I said




That is what it took for CDs to take off.


Arny said


No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Arny said

And it isn't what it took for DVD-V to take off.

I didn't say it was.You are comparing apples to oranges. People are used
to
watching video at home so it should be no surprise that DVDs were able to
do
well before they became so portable.

The DVD format took off for the same reason as the CD, better quality. A
DVD picture is superior to a VHS picture and it has better sound quality.

But the fact is they are quite convenient
and quite portable. I am confident that this has helped the success of
that
medium.


Arny said



The autochanger thing has to be one of the worst red herrings in recent
RAO
history,and that's saying quite a bit. Why do you need a changer with
media
that already plays for a couple of hours from a single disc?

Because commercial discs rarely have a couple hours of material on them.

Arny said


The answer is
that you don't.

Wrong answer.


Arny said


And you said autochangers for the car? That's totally
unreal.

Hardly. But certainly CD players for the car were a major factor for the
success of CDs even before autochangers were available. Convenience and
portability.

I said


It is what the average consumer really wants. Convenience and
portability.


Arny said


Well, compared to what?

Inconvenience and nonportability.


Arny said


The pre-existing format for DVD-V was VHS tape,
which was already reasonably convenient.

Which has what to do with the topic of DVD Audio and SACD?

Arny said


Ironically, DVD-V's popularity was
based on picture and sound quality.

I would say there were other factors. Laser Disc already had VHS clearly
beat
in quality and that format has died.


Because you could not watch the whole movie without the disc being turned
over.

Arny said



It wasn't true for the CD which took maybe a decade for player prices to
come down to those of the average turntable,

No. They were available pretty much right away.

Arny said

and for which it took years and
years for portable players including auto players to become popular.

No. It took a few years for them to become avialable. As soon as they were
affordable to the average consumer they took off in popularity.
Coincidentally
(not really a coincidence IMO) that was when the CD format took off as
well.


Arny said


It wasn't true for the DVD which took off while DVD player prices were
substantially higher than average CD and VHS player prices, and when
there
really was no such thing as a viable portable player that sold in any
kind
of serious volume.

Which still has nothing to do with DVD Audio or SACD. Yeah, DVD came
around at
a good time when home theater became interesting to more consumers.

I said


The fact is most consumers are quite satisfied with MP3.

Arny said


Now finally sockpuppet, you say something that makes a little sense.


Everything I said has made sense whether you agree with it or not.

I said



Most casual music listeners are not audiophiles. It is a niche market
and always has been.

Arny said


Problem is, the audiophile market is too tiny of a niche to support two
formats that could only possibly be interesting to audiophiles. SACD and
DVD-A could be interesting formats if they actually sounded better, but
of
course they don't.

It may be true that the market is too small to support all the formats.
That
has nothing to do with whether or not they offer any improvement in
performance. If consumers believe they offer an improvement it doesn't
matter
if a handful of people disagree. Audiophiles have been raving about the
improvements they hear from both new formats. Whether or not that is from
a
real difference in the formats themselves or a difference in the mastering
of
the titles or even an imagined difference it is of no consequence to the
sales
of titles in these formats. The perception is what matters.


Arny said


With DVD-A and SACD you've got two solutions looking for a problem that
neither of them adequately solves, duking it out in a niche marketplace.
Be
still my heart!

Yours is only one opinion. You may be right though that the audiophile
market
may simply be too small to support the formats. Time will tell. It doesn't
seem
to take a large market to support the audio vinyl niche. That is still
enjoying
a substantial reniassance much to my delight.

I said

A far larger number of people
have
already expressed a preference for SACDs based on informal, uncontroled
comparisons.

Mike said


Which are therefore meaningless.

Wrong. They may or may not be accurate but they are far from meaningless.


I said


Whether or not you like it, that is good enough for most
consumers.

Mike said




Other than when the music is mixed for surround sound, I can't tell any
difference between SACD and CD.

Then I would say you may be having problems with your hearing perception. While
there may be some debate over whether or not the media matters there is no
debate I know of over whether or not the mastering matters. Unless all your
comparisons have been with CDs and SACDs that have identica; masterings you
atre failing to hear real and accepted differences.


I said



I haven't really been following the format wars of late but I would
suspect that it will take inexpensive portable players and autochangers
for the
car for SACD or DVD audio to take off. That is what it took for CDs to
take
off.

Mike said




The format took off therefore there were inexpensive portable players, not
the other way round.

There were reletively inexpensive players well before the format ever took off.
That is a fact.



Mike said




CD's took off because they sound better and they take up less space than an
LP. Mostly sounding better accounted for their popularity.


They took off because they sound better and are more durable than cassettes and
every bit as convenient and portable.

Mike said


The DVD format took off for the same reason as the CD, better quality. A
DVD picture is superior to a VHS picture and it has better sound quality.


So why didn't laser disc take off? It was clearly superior to VHS and is
arguably superior to DVD. There is more to the formula of success to these
formats than actual quality. VHS beat out Beta for reasons that had nothing to
do with quality. LPs gave way to Cassettes for reasons that had nothing to do
with quality. Convenience and portability have been the key factors IMO in
audio. I think an interest is home theater helped DVDs along with all the bonus
material and the full support of the industry.


I said


I would say there were other factors. Laser Disc already had VHS clearly
beat
in quality and that format has died.


Mike said



Because you could not watch the whole movie without the disc being turned
over.

You could if you had a player that played both sides. Mine does.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Mike said

The DVD format took off for the same reason as the CD, better
quality. A DVD picture is superior to a VHS picture and it has
better sound quality.

So why didn't laser disc take off?

Initially, LDs were crap, which cast a pall on the whole product. There was
a major upgrade when they went from FM sound to PCM sound. The players were
very expensive. Lots of reasons.

It was clearly superior to VHS and is arguably superior to DVD.

Only near the end of the practical life of the format.

There is more to the formula of success
to these formats than actual quality. VHS beat out Beta for reasons
that had nothing to do with quality.

The differences while noticeable were not that great. VHS went through quite
a few stages of improvement after Beta had pretty well been chased out of
the market.

LPs gave way to Cassettes for
reasons that had nothing to do with quality.

No rumble, tics and pops in cassettes, unlike records.

Convenience and
portability have been the key factors IMO in audio.

Yours is only one opinion.

I think an interest is home theater helped DVDs along with all the bonus
material and the full support of the industry.

5.1 sound also helped DVDs gain ground against VHS.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
Mike said


The DVD format took off for the same reason as the CD, better quality. A
DVD picture is superior to a VHS picture and it has better sound quality.


So why didn't laser disc take off? It was clearly superior to VHS and is
arguably superior to DVD. There is more to the formula of success to these
formats than actual quality. VHS beat out Beta for reasons that had
nothing to
do with quality. LPs gave way to Cassettes for reasons that had nothing to
do
with quality. Convenience and portability have been the key factors IMO in
audio. I think an interest is home theater helped DVDs along with all the
bonus
material and the full support of the industry.


I said


I would say there were other factors. Laser Disc already had VHS
clearly
beat
in quality and that format has died.


Mike said



Because you could not watch the whole movie without the disc being turned
over.

You could if you had a player that played both sides. Mine does.



Does it not stop while turning to the other side?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
I said

A far larger number of people
have
already expressed a preference for SACDs based on informal, uncontroled
comparisons.

Mike said


Which are therefore meaningless.

Wrong. They may or may not be accurate but they are far from meaningless.

From a scientific standpoint they are meaningless.

I said


Whether or not you like it, that is good enough for most
consumers.

Mike said




Other than when the music is mixed for surround sound, I can't tell any
difference between SACD and CD.

Then I would say you may be having problems with your hearing perception.

And your statement would be meaningless from a scientific standpoint.

While
there may be some debate over whether or not the media matters there is no
debate I know of over whether or not the mastering matters. Unless all
your
comparisons have been with CDs and SACDs that have identica; masterings
you
atre failing to hear real and accepted differences.

A good mix can be had in either format and has nothing to do with the sound
of the format only with the sound of the mastering.


I said



I haven't really been following the format wars of late but I would
suspect that it will take inexpensive portable players and autochangers
for the
car for SACD or DVD audio to take off. That is what it took for CDs to
take
off.

Mike said




The format took off therefore there were inexpensive portable players,
not
the other way round.

There were reletively inexpensive players well before the format ever took
off.
That is a fact.



Mike said




CD's took off because they sound better and they take up less space than
an
LP. Mostly sounding better accounted for their popularity.


They took off because they sound better and are more durable than
cassettes and
every bit as convenient and portable.

"Arny Krueger" wrote:




Problem is, the audiophile market is too tiny of a niche to support two
formats that could only possibly be interesting to audiophiles. SACD and
DVD-A could be interesting formats if they actually sounded better, but of
course they don't.

With DVD-A and SACD you've got two solutions looking for a problem that
neither of them adequately solves, duking it out in a niche marketplace. Be
still my heart!

For sure. The biggest problem those 2 formats face is that Dolby Digital on
DVD-V was already the de-factor standard format for multichannel music release.

(S888Wheel) wrote:

....snip....

So why didn't laser disc take off? It was clearly superior to VHS and is
arguably superior to DVD.

Not that much better than VHS/Beta and nowhere near DVD. Also saddled for a
good share of its life with 2-channel sound.

There is more to the formula of success to these
formats than actual quality. VHS beat out Beta for reasons that had nothing
to
do with quality. LPs gave way to Cassettes for reasons that had nothing to do
with quality.

LPs never "gave way" to cassette. Cassette had a slowly growing market
penetration and was still analog.

Convenience and portability have been the key factors IMO in
audio. I think an interest is home theater helped DVDs along with all the
bonus
material and the full support of the industry.

Radially new technolgy (genuine replacement technology) such as CD offers much
improved performance along with convenience. The perfect example is cd/LP &
cassette. cd replaced both lp and cassette as the music choice because it was
better performing AND more portable and convenient.

DVD hasn't 'replaced ' CD. They co-exist; like the lp/cassette analog formats.

François Yves Le Gal said:

Anyway, SA-CD is still a high end system, not a mass market one. You can't
expect to see today the same volumes as CD.

Would you mind telling us which audio-related company you work for?

François Yves Le Gal
wrote:


On 22 Jan 2004 00:01:45 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

So why didn't laser disc take off?

LD's were bulky and heavy.

True but Video Tape was bulky too.

LD's were very expensive - around USD50,00 for a movie.

I was used to paying $25 for laser discs. The most I ever paid for a single LD
was $40 for the THX Demo disc.

LD's were dual sided, with only 60 mn max per side.

Big limitation.

LD's weren't very reliable. Laser rot anyone?
And so on...

I once owned 300 LDs and cannot recall ever having a single failure either crib
death or in-use over a roughly 7 year period.

S888Wheel said:

The so-called mantra is "show me the beef".

It is "show me the money." Or it is "where's the beef?"

In the Kroo-hive, it's "Where are the rest of my turds?"

I said


So why didn't laser disc take off?


Arny said


Initially, LDs were crap, which cast a pall on the whole product.

I totally disagree. They offered vastly superior performance to VHS from the
get go.

Arny said


There was
a major upgrade when they went from FM sound to PCM sound. The players were
very expensive. Lots of reasons.

They were not all very expensive. The discs themselves weren't all that
expensvie either. Clearly other market forces were at work. Laser disc was
clearly a superior medium to VHS and it died.

I said


It was clearly superior to VHS and is arguably superior to DVD.


Arny said



Only near the end of the practical life of the format.


I disagree, It was always better than VHS and quite substantially so.


I said



There is more to the formula of success
to these formats than actual quality. VHS beat out Beta for reasons
that had nothing to do with quality.

Arny said



The differences while noticeable were not that great.

That is a matter of opinion. But the point is the superior format died while
the inferior one lived. Quality is obviously not the primary driving factor in
the success of different formats. The reason Beta died is well known. It had
nothing to do with quality.

Arny said


VHS went through quite
a few stages of improvement after Beta had pretty well been chased out of
the market.

Yeah, *after.* Quality had nothing to do with the death of Beta. Quality had
nothing to do with consumers choosing one format over the other.

I said



LPs gave way to Cassettes for
reasons that had nothing to do with quality.

Arny said



No rumble, tics and pops in cassettes, unlike records.

Are you seriously going to take the position that cassettes sound better than
records? If so you really do need to upgrade your rig.


I said


Convenience and
portability have been the key factors IMO in audio.

Arny said


Yours is only one opinion.

Of course, as is the case with all people who are not suffering from multiple
personalities.

LD's were bulky and heavy.

Yeah, inconvenient.

LD's were very expensive - around USD50,00 for a movie.

No. they were cheaper than their VHS counterparts on average.

LD's were dual sided, with only 60 mn max per side.

Yeah, inconvenient.

LD's weren't very reliable. Laser rot anyone?
And so on...

They were more reliable than VHS cassettes. Laser rot fortunately was fixed.
Ultimately the problem with laser discs were mostly a matter of convenience.

I said


So why didn't laser disc take off? It was clearly superior to VHS and is
arguably superior to DVD.

Tom said


Not that much better than VHS/Beta and nowhere near DVD

I quite disagree on both counts. DVD ghas some serious image problems that
laser disc never suffered from. There is simply no contest between laser dics
and VHS.

Tom said


Also saddled for a
good share of its life with 2-channel sound.

Also a problem that was fixed.

I said


There is more to the formula of success to these
formats than actual quality. VHS beat out Beta for reasons that had nothing
to
do with quality. LPs gave way to Cassettes for reasons that had nothing to
do
with quality.

Tom said


LPs never "gave way" to cassette.

Complete nonsense. In less than 10 years cassettes went from non-existance in
the market to total domination of the market. Something like an 80% market
share. The LP certainly did give way to the cassette. The fact that both are
analog couldn't be less relevant to my claim.


I said



Convenience and portability have been the key factors IMO in
audio. I think an interest is home theater helped DVDs along with all the
bonus
material and the full support of the industry.

Tom said



Radially new technolgy (genuine replacement technology) such as CD offers
much
improved performance along with convenience

It is more convenient. Without that it wouldn't have made such an impact. I
agree that it was an improvement in quality over cassettes.


Tom said

The perfect example is cd/LP &
cassette. cd replaced both lp and cassette as the music choice because it was
better performing AND more portable and convenient.

Yes it was more convenient than LPs and better sounding than cassettes. It
makes perfect sense that it would overtake them both once it was convenient
enough to compete with cassettes. The fact is that better sound from LPs over
CDs comes at a higher price tag that most consumers are not willing to pay.
Hence it has been reduced to a niche market. A market that continues to thrive
in it's niche.

Nousiane mumbled:

Radially new technolgy

So you welcomed turntables and the media they play? I'd never have
suspected that.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote:




You could if you had a player that played both sides. Mine does.



Does it not stop while turning to the other side?


There's a minor disruption.. The "disc" doesn't turn over the laser (or another
one) just reads the other side.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Nousiane mumbled:

Radially new technolgy

So you welcomed turntables and the media they play? I'd never have
suspected that.




Yes, lp's are a radial technology.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

(S888Wheel) wrote:

I said


So why didn't laser disc take off? It was clearly superior to VHS and is
arguably superior to DVD.

Tom said


Not that much better than VHS/Beta and nowhere near DVD

I quite disagree on both counts. DVD ghas some serious image problems that
laser disc never suffered from. There is simply no contest between laser dics
and VHS.

Sure there was. Price was only one. Availability was the other. Picure quality
on LD varied remarkably from release to release.

Personally I've never seen major picture quality problems with DVD and the
basic picture quality improvement with DVD is much greater than the improvement
of LD over VHS/Beta. One BIG improvement of LD over tape was disc access. Some
would call that "convenience" but with music programs it was a godsend.

The one place where laser really shined was for Opera. It provided a medium
with lots of releases and for which it seemed pefectly suited.


Tom said


Also saddled for a
good share of its life with 2-channel sound.

Also a problem that was fixed.

But only near the end of Laser-life format (about the time DVD was being
announced) and only with another hardware purchase or equipment hardware
modification. Like other about-to-be displaced technologies Laser got "better"
when it felt the footsteps of digital video.

I was a Laser-Fan and spent several thousand on laser hardware and software,
enjoying the picture improvement thoroughly, but it was not as major a step
forward as DVD, which dispensed with the analog video.

I said


There is more to the formula of success to these
formats than actual quality. VHS beat out Beta for reasons that had nothing
to
do with quality. LPs gave way to Cassettes for reasons that had nothing to
do
with quality.

Tom said


LPs never "gave way" to cassette.

Complete nonsense. In less than 10 years cassettes went from non-existance in
the market to total domination of the market.

My memory may be wrong but I thought that it took nearly 10 years from
introduction before cassette captured half the market. OTOH CD dominated LP in
a comparatively short time.

IMO analog formats like VHS, Cassette and LP co-existed quite nicely just as
CD/DVD coexist now. SACD and DVD-A are a "laser-like" format, a specialty
market that will keep "going" as long as manufacturers will continue supporting
it. Like Sony did with Beta and Pioneer did with Laser Disc. My gratitude to
both of them.

Something like an 80% market
share. The LP certainly did give way to the cassette. The fact that both are
analog couldn't be less relevant to my claim.

Actually it is relevant. The 'real' technology replacement was analog by
digital. We have also overlooked the digital format wars. Remember DCC and
Minidisc? How about DAT; it replaced open-reel analog tape in an eye-blink for
both studio and on-location recordings.

I said



Convenience and portability have been the key factors IMO in
audio. I think an interest is home theater helped DVDs along with all the
bonus
material and the full support of the industry.

Tom said



Radially new technolgy (genuine replacement technology) such as CD offers
much
improved performance along with convenience

It is more convenient. Without that it wouldn't have made such an impact. I
agree that it was an improvement in quality over cassettes.

And a major, major improvement over LP. If it were primarily convenience than
cassette would still be a major player.


Tom said

The perfect example is cd/LP &
cassette. cd replaced both lp and cassette as the music choice because it
was
better performing AND more portable and convenient.

Yes it was more convenient than LPs and better sounding than cassettes. It
makes perfect sense that it would overtake them both once it was convenient
enough to compete with cassettes. The fact is that better sound from LPs over
CDs comes at a higher price tag that most consumers are not willing to pay.

When CD was first introduced it was Less Expensive than many of the specialty
LPs I was buying at the time. Not only was it cheaper it was MUCH better in
basic performance, annoyance (no ticks and pops, wow and flutter), handling and
convenience.

I began selling off my LP collection about a year before I actually obtained a
cd player; but had a shelf of the 50 or so discs I knew I could NEVER live
without, including 4 (count 'em) sealed copies of my favorite direct-cut LP
which were NOT for sale.

However 6-8 months after I had a cd player installed I realized that I had not
played even ONE of those prized discs except for the few times when a visitor
had asked for a play.

So I began giving them away to encourage friends and acquaintances to get
interested in audio. For those sealed copies I included a photocopy of an ad
for used copies with an asking price (not mine) of $250.

I initally tested the market for those by advertising in The Audio Amateur,
Speaker Builder and LC. Do you know how many calls I received for a sealed
Sheffield, out-of-print "Pressure Cooker" without a listed price? ......
exactly Zero. Nobody wanted them, nobody cared.


Hence it has been reduced to a niche market. A market that continues to
thrive
in it's niche.

I'm thinking that niche is mostly in the DJ and Rap arena. But, it's also true
that nostalgia and collection often has a "thriving" specialty market. For
example antique cars, motorcycles and tractors have a thriving market. For a
while so did Baseball Cards.

One of my friends is an avid collector/musicologist of Garage Rock Bands and
Surf Music. I once told him that I loved "Harlem Nocturn" a late 50s surf tune.
The next time I saw him he handed me a CD-R with 16 recorded versions of that
song dating from 1939 to 1990. He literally stalks used-record stores. If you
ask him he'll tell you that market "thrives" and in that context it does but
it's not a major market player.

I said


So why didn't laser disc take off? It was clearly superior to VHS and is
arguably superior to DVD.

Tom said


Not that much better than VHS/Beta and nowhere near DVD

I said


I quite disagree on both counts. DVD ghas some serious image problems that
laser disc never suffered from. There is simply no contest between laser
dics
and VHS.

Tom said



Sure there was. Price was only one. Availability was the other.

i was strictly speaking about performance.


Tom said


Picure quality
on LD varied remarkably from release to release.


As it did with VHS and still does with DVD. I persoanlly mastered the transfer
of one comercial release for VHS and produced the commercial poduct. I spared
no expense to produce the best VHS cassettes possible. The Laser disc produced
off the same exact masters simply killed the VHS version. Laser discs were
simply inherently superior. There is no way to prevent some people from
producing crappy laser discs, DVDs or VHS cassettes.

Tom said


Personally I've never seen major picture quality problems with DVD and the
basic picture quality improvement with DVD is much greater than the
improvement
of LD over VHS/Beta.

Well we totally disagree on this one. While it is more a matter of original
matterial and quality of transfer when comparing DVDs to laser discs there is
no getting around the fact that the best DVDs still have major problems with
contrast color accuracy and pixilation with sudden rapid movement in the image.
You may not notice it but it bothers me a great deal. These problems are
clearly a problem unique to the DVDs themselves.

Tom said



I was a Laser-Fan and spent several thousand on laser hardware and software,
enjoying the picture improvement thoroughly, but it was not as major a step
forward as DVD, which dispensed with the analog video.

We obviously are looking at the image quite differently. Certainly some DVDs
look better than some of their laser disc counterparts but for the most part I
find the opposite to be true. i also find the best laser discs to be
substantially better than anything on DVD. DVDs have some serious flaws. I live
with them because it is all we have but it is not a good picture IMO unless you
are watching cel animation without shading.

Tom said


LPs never "gave way" to cassette.


I said


Complete nonsense. In less than 10 years cassettes went from non-existance
in
the market to total domination of the market.


Tom said


My memory may be wrong but I thought that it took nearly 10 years from
introduction before cassette captured half the market.

It had 80% or there abouts by the eighties. Commercial releases on cassette hit
the market in the mid to late seventees if I remember correctly. It took CDs
about the same amount of time to overtake cassettes. The LP gave way to the
cassette and the cassette gave way to the CD. The LP just happened to stick
around while the cassette died.


Tom said


OTOH CD dominated LP in
a comparatively short time.

So? Cassettes were already totally dominating the market. Cassettes overtook
8-track pretty quickly too.


Tom said


IMO analog formats like VHS, Cassette and LP co-existed quite nicely just as
CD/DVD coexist now. SACD and DVD-A are a "laser-like" format, a specialty
market that will keep "going" as long as manufacturers will continue
supporting
it. Like Sony did with Beta and Pioneer did with Laser Disc. My gratitude to
both of them.


You say this as though LPs have gone away. They continue to enjoy a niche
market that has grown substantially over the past 10 years.

I said


Something like an 80% market
share. The LP certainly did give way to the cassette. The fact that both are
analog couldn't be less relevant to my claim.

Tom said


Actually it is relevant. The 'real' technology replacement was analog by
digital.

We ween't talking about "technology"we were talking formats. So it was quite
irrelevant dispite your attempt to change the issue.

Tom said

We have also overlooked the digital format wars. Remember DCC and
Minidisc?

Vaguely.

Tom said

How about DAT; it replaced open-reel analog tape in an eye-blink for
both studio and on-location recordings.

Balony!


I said


It is more convenient. Without that it wouldn't have made such an impact. I
agree that it was an improvement in quality over cassettes.


Tom said


And a major, major improvement over LP.

IYO. Not in mine.

Tom said

If it were primarily convenience than
cassette would still be a major player.


No. CDs are better in quality than cassettes. They are also much more rugged so
they are a tad bit more convenient

Does it not stop while turning to the other side?

I don't know. I don't open it when it is changing sides.

(S888Wheel) wrote:

In a generally argumentative mode .....and nearly un-readable format....

I said

And continue to use this irritaing format that is simply hard to read and
difficult to deal with. Please be more direct.

So why didn't laser disc take off? It was clearly superior to VHS and is
arguably superior to DVD.

Tom said


Not that much better than VHS/Beta and nowhere near DVD

I said


I quite disagree on both counts. DVD ghas some serious image problems that
laser disc never suffered from. There is simply no contest between laser
dics
and VHS.

Tom said

Sure there was. Price was only one. Availability was the other.

i was strictly speaking about performance.

No you weren't. If you were you'd have noted that the increase in resolution
between VHS/Beta and Laser Disc was nominal compared to the difference between
VHS and DVD.

Tom said

Picure quality
on LD varied remarkably from release to release.


As it did with VHS and still does with DVD. I persoanlly mastered the
transfer
of one comercial release for VHS and produced the commercial poduct. I spared
no expense to produce the best VHS cassettes possible. The Laser disc
produced
off the same exact masters simply killed the VHS version.

Killed? Did you produce this on DVD? I hope so.

Laser discs were
simply inherently superior. There is no way to prevent some people from
producing crappy laser discs, DVDs or VHS cassettes.

Yeah; so what? I know I raised that point but IF there would have been a
significant quality different inherent in the format than ALL but obviously
badly produced products would have been significantly better.

IME, all laser disc products I've witnessed compared to the VHS product were
"better" but the differences ranged from 'barely' to 'lots.' Generally the
differences between DVD and tape has always been "fantastic." And the
differences between DVD and Laser have been "large."

I loved Laser Disc. I love DVD even more. I love SACD and I love DVD-A but I
realize they are not really any "better' than DVD-V in sound quality (the
recording, mix, mastering, production are more important than the format) and
will (aside from being multichannel) be "transition" formats like laser disc.
What's wrong with that?


Tom said


Personally I've never seen major picture quality problems with DVD and the
basic picture quality improvement with DVD is much greater than the
improvement
of LD over VHS/Beta.

Well we totally disagree on this one. While it is more a matter of original
matterial and quality of transfer when comparing DVDs to laser discs there is
no getting around the fact that the best DVDs still have major problems with
contrast color accuracy and pixilation with sudden rapid movement in the
image.

I look very hard for these effets and seldom see them. They are sometimes
painfully obvious with satellite TV but compared to analog broadcast/cable they
are still relatively minor.


You may not notice it but it bothers me a great deal. These problems are
clearly a problem unique to the DVDs themselves.

Like the ticks, pops and speed variation of analog disc formats? No format is
perfect but DVD is "closer" to perfect than tape and Laser Disc ever was :-)

Tom said


I was a Laser-Fan and spent several thousand on laser hardware and software,
enjoying the picture improvement thoroughly, but it was not as major a step
forward as DVD, which dispensed with the analog video.

We obviously are looking at the image quite differently. Certainly some DVDs
look better than some of their laser disc counterparts but for the most part
I
find the opposite to be true. i also find the best laser discs to be
substantially better than anything on DVD.

This may be your experience. But to me DVD, has buried LD, and is now only
surpassed by HDTV.

DVDs have some serious flaws. I
live
with them because it is all we have but it is not a good picture IMO unless
you
are watching cel animation without shading.

Tom said


LPs never "gave way" to cassette.


I said


Complete nonsense. In less than 10 years cassettes went from non-existance
in
the market to total domination of the market.


Tom said


My memory may be wrong but I thought that it took nearly 10 years from
introduction before cassette captured half the market.

It had 80% or there abouts by the eighties.

By the "80s" leaves quite a time span.

Commercial releases on cassette
hit
the market in the mid to late seventees if I remember correctly.

Mid-70s and they worked themselves in relatively slowly. CD arrived in 1984 and
within 3 years had captured major market share.

It took CDs
about the same amount of time to overtake cassettes. The LP gave way to the
cassette and the cassette gave way to the CD. The LP just happened to stick
around while the cassette died.

Not so; cassette died. But LPs didn't stick around. It just matured into the
'residual use' phase of the technology life cycle. Which is where it remains.

Tom said


OTOH CD dominated LP in
a comparatively short time.

So? Cassettes were already totally dominating the market. Cassettes overtook
8-track pretty quickly too.


Hogwash; 8-track never was a major market player. Cassette was an alternative
analog tape format that was better performing and more convenient and backed by
a company that wasn't about to let it die UNTIL they had a suitable replacement
format (DC.)

Tom said


IMO analog formats like VHS, Cassette and LP co-existed quite nicely just as
CD/DVD coexist now. SACD and DVD-A are a "laser-like" format, a specialty
market that will keep "going" as long as manufacturers will continue
supporting
it. Like Sony did with Beta and Pioneer did with Laser Disc. My gratitude to
both of them.


You say this as though LPs have gone away. They continue to enjoy a niche
market that has grown substantially over the past 10 years.

I said


Something like an 80% market
share. The LP certainly did give way to the cassette. The fact that both
are
analog couldn't be less relevant to my claim.

Tom said


Actually it is relevant. The 'real' technology replacement was analog by
digital.

We ween't talking about "technology"we were talking formats. So it was quite
irrelevant dispite your attempt to change the issue.

No it's your attempt to ignore the basic change agent. Digital repleces analog
because at the consumer level it offers better sound quality in a more
convenient, more robust package.

Tom said

We have also overlooked the digital format wars. Remember DCC and
Minidisc?

Vaguely.

Well why not? DAT pounded the pants off both because it was more suited to the
semi-pro market than those attempted consumer formats. Minidisc still is alive
(barely) but to Sony's credit they haven't stranded their customers and are
still working to find a "niche" for that format. maybe they should call it
digital LP-tape :-)


Tom said

How about DAT; it replaced open-reel analog tape in an eye-blink for
both studio and on-location recordings.

Balony!

Help me out here. I was under the impression that I know of a 'thriving'
professional electronics repair business that just folded about 2 year after
the introduction of DAT, simply because companies like OTARI just "went away."

I also know hard-core jazz fans, the kind that attended jazz festivals and
recorded the shows, who quickly abandoned open reel as soon as DAT was
available. Indeed, they still record the music on DAT and transcribe it to CD-R
at home.

Do you know of any companies that still record on analog open reel? Do you know
of any serious companies that still captured sound on analog open reel in the
late 90s?

I'm now listening to a great recording made in 1990 by (IMO the world's best
recording engineer) John Eargle captured "direct to two-track digital."

You might argue with some reason that DAT, as a format, may not have driven
open-reel out of the pro business all by itself but digital recording certainly
did; just DAT did for on-location recording.


I said


It is more convenient. Without that it wouldn't have made such an impact. I
agree that it was an improvement in quality over cassettes.


Tom said


And a major, major improvement over LP.

IYO. Not in mine.

Each to his own. But I think the individual recording/musical event is what
makes the magic. But, the more transparent recording AND PLAYBACK formats
enhance that experience. And, IMO, laser disc was a nice reprieve, but now just
a nice memory of how good analog became in it's dying days.


Tom said

If it were primarily convenience than
cassette would still be a major player.


No. CDs are better in quality than cassettes. They are also much more rugged
so
they are a tad bit more convenient

CDs are no more 'rugged' than cassettes except in an "archival" sense. And with
disc access they are "far more" convenient. No comparison.

Even with LPs, with disc access but no "remote controls" the cd format is not
only more reliable, better sounding (even if you restrict comparison to
background noise and odd-noise issues and speed variations), more robust (I
once bought,returned 4 copies of an LP album with significant warps and finally
decided that IF I wanted to enjoy this music I'd have to live with the warp)
and just plain better.


That some folks will argue with my assessment just isn't my problem.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

I said

So why didn't laser disc take off?

Arny said

Initially, LDs were crap, which cast a pall on the whole product.

I totally disagree. They offered vastly superior performance to VHS
from the get go.

I guess you weren't there in the beginning, sockpuppet. Skipping was
endemic.

Arny said

There was
a major upgrade when they went from FM sound to PCM sound. The
players were very expensive. Lots of reasons.

They were not all very expensive.

Look at the pricing, add inflation and then compare it to the current
pricing of DVD players which bottoms out around $30.

The discs themselves weren't all that expensive either.

Look at the pricing, add inflation and then compare it to the current
pricing of DVDs.

Clearly other market forces were at work.

As usual sockpuppet, your command of the facts is horrifically bad.

Laser disc was clearly a superior medium to VHS and it died.

The moral of the story is that there is nothing more frustrating and deadly
than being ahead of your time.

I said

It was clearly superior to VHS and is arguably superior to DVD.

Arny said


Only near the end of the practical life of the format.

I disagree, It was always better than VHS and quite substantially so.

As usual sockpuppet, you immediately forget what you say. Either that, or
your powers of expression are nil. You said: "...arguably superior to DVD."

I said

There is more to the formula of success
to these formats than actual quality. VHS beat out Beta for reasons
that had nothing to do with quality.


Arny said

The differences while noticeable were not that great.

That is a matter of opinion.

Relevant opinions are based on reliable facts. Since you've got most of the
facts wrong, your opinions aren't relevant.

But the point is the superior format
died while the inferior one lived. Quality is obviously not the
primary driving factor in the success of different formats.

Quality has to be delivered at a reasonable price to create or satisfy a
mass market. And of course, the market or the potential for it, has to
exist.

The reason Beta died is well known. It had nothing to do with quality.

It was a testimony to Sony's lack of business and technical expertise.

Arny said

VHS went through quite
a few stages of improvement after Beta had pretty well been chased
out of the market.

Yeah, *after.* Quality had nothing to do with the death of Beta.

The one problem with the alleged quality of Beta was that it was not
sufficient to overwhelm its competitor's superior business expertise and
eventual technical expertise.

Quality had nothing to do with consumers choosing one format over the
other.

All generalizions are false, and this one is founded in more than a little
bit of historical error and incompetent business analysis.

I said

LPs gave way to Cassettes for
reasons that had nothing to do with quality.

Arny said

No rumble, tics and pops in cassettes, unlike records.

Are you seriously going to take the position that cassettes sound
better than records?

Cassettes had some sound quality advantages over LPs. Not the total
overwhelming domination of digital, but there was a significant improvement.
Like I said, no rumble, tics, and pops.

They were more durable in a way. Most significantly, they were suitable for
portable use. I'm old enough to remember the vain attempts to play vinyl in
moving cars. I even sold a few of the players.

If so you really do need to upgrade your rig.

Unlike you sockpuppet, my ears are still good enough to hear rumble, tics
and pops.

I said

Convenience and
portability have been the key factors IMO in audio.

Arny said

Yours is only one opinion.

Of course, as is the case with all people who are not suffering from
multiple personalities.

Just goes to show how limited and narrow your thinking is, sockpuppet. A
normal person can have hold or be functionally aware of several opinions on
a subject, and clearly see many sides to an argument.

People who are obsessive, or have limited mentalities can only see one.
Thanks for admitting that you are one such person, sockpuppet.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

I said


So why didn't laser disc take off?


Arny said


Initially, LDs were crap, which cast a pall on the whole product.

I totally disagree. They offered vastly superior performance to VHS
from the get go.

Let's run the numbers. Sockpuppet wheel says that he was just out of college
when he bought his first CD player, but the CD player he bought wasn't one
of the first two on the market. So, he was just out of college say in 1984
or later. In contrast, the LD was introduced in 1977, per this article:
http://www.mindspring.com/~laserguru/popsci.htm . This was about 7 years
earlier, when sockpuppet wheel was just apparently just getting into high
school. Just guessing here, but sockpuppet wheel might not have gotten into
LDs until they were on the market for 3-5 years or more.

In contrast, at the time of the introduction of the LD I was in my mid-30's.
I had a close friend who was an early adopter of LD. He bought one of the
first LD players available in the city. I seem to recall that he bought a
Phillips/Magnavox player and it was really bad. He took it back in a little
while, and got a Pioneer player which was marginally acceptable. The major
problems were skipping, repeats, and glitches in the video even when there
was no skipping or repeating. Shades of vinyl!

I subsequently got a detailed running commentary on the technical issues
related to LDs because GM decided to release a lot of technical material on
LDs. Early on, a LD production facility was built in Detroit. Its chief
engineer was a person who remains a close friend to this day. He vents a
lot! This LD plant was said to be the first independent (not built with
direct help from Sony or Phillips) LD plant in the world. He had a lot to
vent about.

LDs are inherently far more difficult and expensive to make than CDs or DVDs
simply because they are so large, and because they are composed of two
pieces of plastic bonded together, back-to-back. By the time CDs were
introduced, the whole process of making and playing LDs was working quite
nicely, as it should given the timing.

Making CDs was maybe an order of magnitude easier than making LDs, all
things considered. That's one reason why the CD intro was as smooth as it
was. Most of the serious technical battles were fought and won with LDs, and
then they scaled the product way down and made it even easier to make and
play.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:10:58 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

This was about 7 years
earlier, when sockpuppet wheel was just apparently just getting into high
school. Just guessing here, but sockpuppet wheel might not have gotten into
LDs until they were on the market for 3-5 years or more.

So? You claim to have been building amps since you were 12 or earlier.
Should we take this as a tacit admission from you that we should
question this, since apparently high schoolers apparently "might not"
have access to LDs?

What logic you display...

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:10:58 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

In contrast, at the time of the introduction of the LD I was in my mid-30's.

You mean you didn't invent the format?

(S888Wheel) wrote in message ...

LD's were bulky and heavy.

Yeah, inconvenient.

LD's were very expensive - around USD50,00 for a movie.

No. they were cheaper than their VHS counterparts on average.

LD's were dual sided, with only 60 mn max per side.

Yeah, inconvenient.

LD's weren't very reliable. Laser rot anyone?
And so on...

They were more reliable than VHS cassettes. Laser rot fortunately was fixed.
Ultimately the problem with laser discs were mostly a matter of convenience.

My son had an early laser disk player. The FIRST question people
asked was how much are the disk-at the time 40-100. There was never a
follow-up question. I was an early adoptee of DVD-same question how
much are the disks, "that is not bad", how much for the player. I
submit that the disks were too expensive to become a household format.

"randyb" wrote in message
om

(S888Wheel) wrote in message
...

LD's were bulky and heavy.

Yeah, inconvenient.

LD's were very expensive - around USD50,00 for a movie.

No. they were cheaper than their VHS counterparts on average.

Not many people bought VHS tapes at those prices, either. Then someone had
this idea - tape rentals...

LD's were dual sided, with only 60 mn max per side.

Yeah, inconvenient.

LD's weren't very reliable. Laser rot anyone?
And so on...

They were more reliable than VHS cassettes.

Near the end, yes. In the beginning, no. Actually, LDs were very reliable in
the beginning, they very reliably failed to play properly.

Laser rot fortunately
was fixed. Ultimately the problem with laser discs were mostly a
matter of convenience.

Only if you ignore the other problems. Of course, we're going to get this
convenience-mainly song-and-dance rammed down our throats by a vinyl bigot
who claims that convenience is the main thing that CDs have going for them.

My son had an early laser disk player. The FIRST question people
asked was how much are the disk-at the time 40-100.

OK, this was 1977. Let's play the inflation game.

http://www.newsengin.com/neFreeTools.nsf

For the LA area, exclusive of food and clothing:

$40 in 1977 had the same buying power as $122.96 in 2003.
$100 in 1977 had the same buying power as $307.40 in 2003.

A DVD costs $10-18 in 2003.

$10 in 2003 had the same buying power as $3.25 in 1977.
$18 in 2003 had the same buying power as $5.86 in 1977.

There was never a follow-up question.

Gosh, I wonder why! How many movies are worth $120-300 to you?

LOL!

I was an early adoptee of DVD-same question how
much are the disks, "that is not bad", how much for the player. I

Players can be had today for $30-40.

submit that the disks were too expensive to become a household format.

Totally agreed.

From: François Yves Le Gal
Date: 1/22/2004 12:59 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:07:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

A DVD costs $10-18 in 2003.

Nope. Make it 24.99 to 29.99 USD.

Nope. 24.99 USD is way too high a figure. One can sometimes find DVDs for
10.00 USD.

"Torresists" wrote in message

From: François Yves Le Gal
Date: 1/22/2004 12:59 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:07:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

A DVD costs $10-18 in 2003.

Nope. Make it 24.99 to 29.99 USD.

Nope. 24.99 USD is way too high a figure. One can sometimes find DVDs
for 10.00 USD.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....&type=category