HTTP/1.0 200 OK Content-type: text/html
Can't connect to database, trying again....HTTP/1.0 200 OK Content-type: text/html
Can't connect to database, trying again....
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: going to be great when they get stuck in everyone's car stereo - nt posted by Replevin on June 14, 2004 at 06:49:25:
Follow Ups:
. . chart CDs presently ALREADY have video & CD-ROM content etc. on them (albeit in lower quality), as this helps to sell CDs.Also, the DualDiscs will most likely NOT have hirez 2-ch (since the CD side will be the 2-ch version), but the DVD side will offer 5.1 surround sound as the main added attraction (i.e. Dolby & hirez MLP). And of course there are the video elements in MUCH higher quality than what 'Jo Public' presently gets with a video-CD section of a chart CD album. In short, the entertainment industry needs DualDisc for the mass market.
One of the main factors holding up the rollout of SACDs by big-name artists is the fact that their lawyers want to secure royalties for all the content of the SACD--the CD layer, the 2-ch SACD content, and the Mch content. Royalty fees triple.You should be under no illusion; these same lawyers will try to milk these dual disks for all they can, and record labels already being squeezed by tight budgets and poor sales will not be able to mete out that kind of cash for royalties on a single title.
What does this dual-disk approach do for us? Absolutely nothing that isn't provided by SACD. If the industry can't make SACD succeed, they should hang up the high-resolution idea, instead of confusing the issue and making decisions harder on the retailers and the consumers. I'm all for choices and competition in consumer products, but this is ridiculous. And not well planned by the industry at all.
> > by big-name artists is the fact that their lawyers want to secure royalties < <We are rapidly reaching the point where these 'artistes' will just have to tell their fat-cat money-milking lawyers exactly where to go, when they realise that there is added-value in the hybrid multi-media 'package' which the consumer will buy (especially as he/she won't be able to download an equivalent). The alternative (i.e. to let their lawyers deny the customers and fans the added-value content) will result in those artistes 'missing the boat'.
COPY PROTECTION!!!!
That's all. Redbook doesn't provide it. Never has, never will. So, the music industry HAS to come up with "some" method of forcing it on consumers. Hi-rez was, is, and always will be a by product of copy protection. The music industry has already been shown that adding copy protection to Redbook will not be accepted by the masses. Ergo, hi-rez, as in - look, we're adding extra value. If they (the music industry) could find a way to encript CD,and sell it, hi-rez, in ALL forms, would be right out the window behind the baby. That's just the way it is. Money rules all.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: