Why DV Didn't Select Blu-ray Audio

[kfbkfb]

Anyone know why DV didn't select Blu-ray with Dolby TrueHD
(and possibly Dolby Digital for legacy compatibility) for their
rereleases?


Kirk Bayne

 

[sjcorne]

Anyone know why DV didn't select Blu-ray with Dolby TrueHD
(and possibly Dolby Digital for legacy compatibility) for their
rereleases?

Probably because unlike Hybrid SACDs, those discs cannot be played in regular CD players or cars. They also don't always offer headless playback.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Somewhat OT:

Anyone know why DV didn't select Blu-ray with Dolby TrueHD
(and possibly Dolby Digital for legacy compatibility) for their
rereleases?


Kirk Bayne

For a very good reason. D~V chose SACD because of it's backward compatibility with RBCD players since MOST of its base customers were accustomed to D~V's prior RBCD releases and also the cost factor. They priced their SACDs on par with their RBCDs and the cost of authoring and pressing BD~As would be cost prohibitive.

 

[JonUrban]

Somewhat OT:

Anyone know why DV didn't select Blu-ray with Dolby TrueHD
(and possibly Dolby Digital for legacy compatibility) for their
rereleases?


Kirk Bayne

If I had to guess, which this is, is that the fees and costs of licensing and creating BluRay discs is far more expensive than making SACDs. The CD compatibility is certainly the kicker, as D-V's main customer base is looking for CDs.

 

[JonUrban]

For a very good reason. D~V chose SACD because of it's backward compatibility with RBCD players since MOST of its base customers were accustomed to D~V's prior RBCD releases and also the cost factor. They priced their SACDs on par with their RBCDs and the cost of authoring and pressing BD~As would be cost prohibitive.

Yup! (You beat me to it)

 

[4-earredwonder]

Yup! (You beat me to it)

And with the unfortunate BD~A failures we've been experiencing lately, fortuitously, SACDs, which are pressed on blank DVDs, in hindsight, seem MORE durable.

 

[DuncanS]

........... and we can unfortunately add that quite a few BD-A seem to fail rather more than one would expect. I actually haven't had a single SACD fail yet, tempting fate I know!

 

[DuncanS]

And with the unfortunate BD~A failures we've been experiencing lately, fortuitously, SACDs, which are pressed on blank DVDs, in hindsight, seem MORE durable.

You beat me to it now!

 

[sjcorne]

........... and we can unfortunately add that quite a few BD-A seem to fail rather more than one would expect. I actually haven't had a single SACD fail yet, tempting fate I know!

It's happened before - I had a copy of The O'Jays' Ship Ahoy (one of the rarest and most desirable multichannel titles, which regularly sells for over $100) that wouldn't play or rip several tracks. I never had one bought new (AF, DV, etc) that failed though.

 

[4-earredwonder]

You beat me to it now!

Because I have four ears .... and twelve fingers, Dunc!

 

[DuncanS]

Because I have four ears .... and twelve fingers, Dunc!

............ I didn't know you came from the county of Norfolk!
(a UK joke! apparently has been seen on Dr's notes NFN = Normal For Norfolk)

 

[4-earredwonder]

............ I didn't know you came from the county of Norfolk!
(a UK joke! apparently has been seen on Dr's notes NFN = Normal For Norfolk)

I learned to count to SIX when I was TWO

 

[ubertrout]

Probably because unlike Hybrid SACDs, those discs cannot be played in regular CD players or cars. They also don't always offer headless playback.

I also suspect the licensing for Blu-Ray may be very different than for SACD.

 

[bmoura]

BD Audio's lack of CD compatibility would indeed be a big reason why.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

I also suspect the licensing for Blu-Ray may be very different than for SACD.

Maybe main reason why Pure Audio Blu-ray never really took off.

 

[privateuniverse]

Just to play devil's advocate for a minute though, I understand that the additional licensing fees for Blu-ray might turn off companies like DV. However, the average consumer does not have SACD capabilities in their homes, whereas lots of folks have Blu-ray players. Wouldn't appealing to a larger consumer base offset the cost of the additional licensing fees?

 

[EricKalet]

Just to play devil's advocate for a minute though, I understand that the additional licensing fees for Blu-ray might turn off companies like DV. However, the average consumer does not have SACD capabilities in their homes, whereas lots of folks have Blu-ray players. Wouldn't appealing to a larger consumer base offset the cost of the additional licensing fees?

It's the backwards compatibility that an SACD offers with the Redbook CD layer that trumps licensing fees and blu ray. That RB CD layer can play at home, in a car, on a computer, portable player, blu ray player, dvd player, laserdisc player, etc.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Maybe main reason why Pure Audio Blu-ray never really took off.

But NOT so surprisingly, for classical lovers the ability to fit multiple albums on a single BD~A disc in either stereo or YOU NAME IT [4.0/5.1/Auro 3D/ATMOS] at VERY AFFORDABLE PRICES has been somewhat of a bonanza.

IMO, consigning a single album to a BD~A always seemed to be a GENUINE waste of valuable real estate and I always questioned why the majors in initiating their so~called "BD~A launches" never released compilation discs, even in stereo, highlighting, for instance, The Best of Motown or Hits of the 70's, 80's, etc. like they've been doing for years on multiple RBCD sets, only in higher resolutions, especially considering the labels have been digitizing their back catalogues in DSD, 96/24 or 192/24 for years.

When one considers that 16 Stereo RBCDs of George Solti's WAGNER RING CYCLE was contained on a single BD~A in 48/24.....you begin to get the picture!

 

[ubertrout]

But NOT so surprisingly, for classical lovers the ability to fit multiple albums on a single BD~A disc in either stereo or YOU NAME IT [4.0/5.1/Auro 3D/ATMOS] at VERY AFFORDABLE PRICES has been somewhat of a bonanza.

IMO, consigning a single album to a BD~A always seemed to be a GENUINE waste of valuable real estate and I always questioned why the majors in initiating their so~called "BD~A launches" never released compilation discs, even in stereo, highlighting, for instance, The Best of Motown or Hits of the 70's, 80's, etc. like they've been doing for years on multiple RBCD sets, only in higher resolutions, especially considering the labels have been digitizing their back catalogues in DSD, 96/24 or 192/24 for years.

When one considers that 16 Stereo RBCDs of George Solti's WAGNER RING CYCLE was contained on a single BD~A in 96/24.....you begin to get the picture!

It's actually 24/48. But the point remains.

Honestly, though, it's just plastic, and BD replication costs are down dramatically, especially if you're only doing a 25GB single layer disc. I think opera is one area where BD-audio has gotten a decent toehold, because there's no issue of awkwardly switching discs and people aren't generally listening on the go. In theory it would also display the texts on the screen, but as I understand it this isn't common.

 

[4-earredwonder]

It's actually 24/48. But the point remains.

Honestly, though, it's just plastic, and BD replication costs are down dramatically, especially if you're only doing a 25GB single layer disc. I think opera is one area where BD-audio has gotten a decent toehold, because there's no issue of awkwardly switching discs and people aren't generally listening on the go. In theory it would also display the texts on the screen, but as I understand it this isn't common.

Ah, yes, 48/24 ... corrected my mistake ubertrout, but IMO, 24 is THE magic number as MOST pre/pros upsample 48 to 96 ANYWAY. Even though BD replication has come down, it's the authoring, etc. that does present the obstacle in producing more BD~A discs....and why a lot of independent labels continue to give us lossy DVD~V DTS/DD 5.1 in lieu of LOSSLESS BD~As. They're still way cheaper to mass produce and author!