[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
209.97.232.186
In Reply to: RE: Very interesting posted by The Sound Guy on December 31, 2007 at 05:14:41
<< So in your opinion why did this flop? >>Tunenut's answer is valid for the mass market. But 96/24 DVD-V should have succeeded as a niche format for audiophiles (just like gold CD's or direct-to-disc LP's, or even SACD's). In my opinion there were several problems:
1) The biggest problem was that by the time our small group had gotten software and hardware into production, both DVD-A and SACD had been announced by the Japanese majors. Even though they were both vaporware and took *years* to materialize, audiophiles were hesitant to spend thousands of dollars for a player that might become obsolete when the new formats were introduced.
2) On the hardware side Ayre, Resolution, and Muse were all small companies (at least at that time) that didn't garner all that much attention or respect. It took years for Levinson (actually Proceed) and Conrad-Johnson to get their players to market. The only company that got to market quickly and had a high profile was Theta.
3) Audiophiles had a general distrust of putting a "video" component into their stereo system. The Ayre player was a modular design that could be purchased as an audio-only two-channel player for CD's and 96/24 discs, but neither we nor the magazines communicated that fact well to the buying public. Plus there was a just a general resistance to the whole idea. We sold over 1000 Ayre DVD players during the life of the product, but literally, less than 20 were sold without some sort of video option.
4) The software choices were disappointing. The Chesky releases sounded good but largely consisted of unknown artists that garnered little attention (or sales). The first Classic releases were rushed to market, using a relatively low-quality A/D converter. Their sound wasn't dramatically better than a well done CD. That was corrected relatively quickly, but you only get one chance to make a first impression and the early Classic titles took a beating in the audiophile magazines.
By far however, the first factor was the greatest. If you go back into the archives, you will see that six or eight years ago the majority of posters here really thought that SACD and/or DVD-A would *replace* CD. There was a general dismissal of the whole 96/24 DVD-V format as a "homespun" phenomenon. It was kind of silly really, though. For example by the year 2000, when SACD and DVD-A had both been officially released for a full year, there were more 96/24 titles available from Chesky and Classic than all the SACD and DVD-A titles from all the major record labels combined! But still nobody took the 96/24 thing seriously. It was actually fairly frustrating. Our group had actually delivered hi-resolution digital to the audiophiles and nobody cared...
Edits: 12/31/07Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]