DVA-A = DVD-Annoying (1 Viewer)

[chris_everett]

I would only add that most AEs are just as confused as we are when it comes to what to put in the surround channels. Of course, there's not even agreement on where to locate the surround speakers in a control room. Regardless, I'm afraid we are going to be seeing bizarre mixes for awhile.
One correction. The responsibility for most "stuff" in surround channels should sit with the producer first, the artist second and the engineer third.

Ed, what's one of the disc's that you have that uses the .1 channel as a full range? I'd like to check it out. As far as I know, every standard has the .1 being used for LFE only, and to deliver a disk with it full range would indicate a huge oversight at several levels (Audio engineer, mastering engineer, dupe plant, QC checks....)

 

[Jack Briggs]

Know something, everyone? I don't know why I didn't realize it when posting here so furiously, but this thread should be moved — to A/V Sources, since that's what we're discussing. Sorry for slacking that way.

 

[Craig_Kg]

You didn't notice it before, Jack, because the thread has only morphed in this direction in the last 4 posts.

 

[NicholasL]

I was just about to post a thread when I found this one. I just spent the last hour researching titles available on both DVD-Audio and SACD, as well as players that do both - I'd say the Pioneer Elite 47AI is one of the nicest.

But with that said, I really cannot justify why anyone would buy a player to support these formats. The wave of the future? Perhaps, but not for many, MANY years to come. Just look at the pathetic lineup of titles out for either format. Sure, lots of jazz, classical, and some vocals like clapton, nora jones, eagles, or beck - but hardly anything compared to CDs. People who buy dvd-a or sacd I think are fooling themselves into enjoying music that isn't what they would really buy if only CDs were available. They just buy the best they can find within the meager 100 disc selection and via placebo think its the greatest thing in the world.

Granted, some of you may really and truly love miles davis, a clarinet compilation, or bach, but the point remains...the selection is so piss poor that neither format should warrant the high price point of its players, nor its constant advertising. It's like the mini disc. Never caught on in the US because the selection was just too small. Unless they plan to convert all existing albums, not to mention every album that comes out hence forth (like they pretty much did with DVD's), then dvd-a and sacd is already a dying hope.

 

[KeithH]

I greatly prefer stereo over multi-channel because in most instances, the implementation of 5.1 for music is done poorly. Having instruments coming from all speakers, seemingly at random, serves no purpose, at least for extended listening. Such a whiz-bang mix is nice for effect and for fun once in awhile, but I cannot enjoy it for the long haul. I always ask myself, "Why did they put the guitar in the rear left speaker there? It could have just as easily been put in the rear right! What was the point of that?"

When the 5.1 arrangement is used properly, meaning to reflect reality, then the results can be wonderful. When the mix uses the rear channel for ambience (crowd noise or reverberations), then the whole sound tends to open up. It's quite an experience. Unfortunately, few 5.1 mixes are done in this way. :frowning:

In discussing multi-channel music, let's not indict any one format. Criticism of the implementation of multi-channel can be just as aptly applied to SACD, DTS CD, and DVD-Video. And don't forget where multi-channel music started -- Quad LP.

 

[Angelo.M]

I greatly prefer stereo over multi-channel because in most instances, the implementation of 5.1 for music is done poorly.

Strongly agree...

 

[CurtisC]

I have cd's poorly recorded,albums poorly recorded,dvd-a's and sacd's poorly redone.I also have all the above done very well,if you like it great,if you don't,great.If I enjoy it thats really all that matters to me.The example Hotel Califonia sounds pretty good to me,it is only an optional alternative(another way to listen)to a classic.Two channel is what I listen to mostly,dvd-a and sacd have have high res 2ch audio,thus dvd-a sacd=good.Multi ch does have its place and will continue to evolve like cars,airplanes,tv's etc..A poorly done recording/remaster is poor regardless of format.Also a dsp soundfield ain't high res,its low res to me,I never listen to 5/7 ch matrix etc..dvd-a, sacd are not just some gimmick,its the start of a new era in audio,IMHO.

 

[Rick_Brown]

People who buy dvd-a or sacd I think are fooling themselves into enjoying music that isn't what they would really buy if only CDs were available. They just buy the best they can find within the meager 100 disc selection and via placebo think its the greatest thing in the world.

What a pompous thing to say! Are you trolling, or do you really think that you know what my motivations are when I buy equipment and music?

I enjoy checking out new technology. All it cost me is money, of which I seem to have enough of, thank you. Seeing as I'm a 50-year old boomer, I'm quite well served by the variety of releases of my favorite older music on DVD-A and SACD, e.g. the whole Stones catalogue, and much more is in the pipeline.

Now, a younger person has a legitimate complaint as there is a lack of new music in these formats. In any event, NicholasL, please spare me the phony putdown for what I choose to listen to.

 

[Jeff O.]

No, Steve, not all DVD-Video players can play DVD-Audio. But all DVD-Audio players can play DVD-Video

True, but maybe we could point out to Steve that all DVD players should play the DD or DTS track that is available on all DVD-A disks. Then later if you get a player with DVD-A capability, you can play the hi-rez DVD-A track.

I guess that I am in the minority here. I think that it is the new multichannel music formats that have got me buying music again. I almost always prefer the multichannel tracks. To me, it opens up a lot of the individual instruments, the imaging becomes more clear.

I guess I don't understand the argument that it isn't what the artist originally intended if it was done in 2Ch. Lots of disks include alternate mixes of songs, often quite different. Who's to say which is the one the "artist or engineer intended". Technology moves along, who's also not to say that if multichannel was available then, that the artist/engineer wouldn't have done it in multichannel. Many times the artist or original engineer also oversee the new mixes. This is all IMHO, of course.
Jeff

 

[John Beavers]

About the only thing that belongs on the rear speakers is audience applause and ambience. If I start hearing instruments back there, as is the case with 90% of all MC recordings, be they DVD concerts, SACD MC or DVD-A I don't necessarily discount the recording, but it loses that feel of the real event for me. I spent two weeks recently listening to my SACDs in MC mode. Out of the 25 discs I listened to I found 4 in which I preferred the MC mix to the stereo. 2 of those were "creative" mixes 2 were of the the applause/ambient rear channel type. I do find that I perfer most if not all my DVD video concerts in MC, irregardless of the type of mix that was done in MC. Why this should be different for me from an audio only MC mix I don't know. But that's my take on it all.

 

[FeisalK]

i must say that all things being equal i prefer multichannel to stereo.

I always thought the aim of stereo is to generate a soundstage that envelops the listener - sort of like a faux multichannel. Why not the real thing?

 

[JimmyK]

Personally, I also find the current state DVD-A and SACD annoying. Bass management issues, improper use of the .1 channel, bass channel levels that don't match the other channels, and no digital connection are some of the factors preventing me from diving in (and I'm usually an early adopter).

Once I see these issues mostly resolved, I may be more inclined to dive in. Those formats certainly have the potential to be great. Time will tell, I guess.

JimmyK

PS - If some of those issues HAVE been resolved and I am just behind the times, feel free to correct me.

 

[Phil A]

I would have to agree with many of the posts here. I have about 3 dozen DVD-As and about 3 times the number of SACDs and with that sample I prefer stereo on 75-80% of the multi-channel things I have. Surround effects are nice for movies when for instance in "Dragonheart" the Dragon flies overhead but I certainly don't want instruments flying over my head. Even many multi-channel mixes that are not gimmicky tend to collapse the sound stage due to less than ideal use of the center.

 

[Lewis Besze]

I greatly prefer stereo over multi-channel because in most instances, the implementation of 5.1 for music is done poorly.

I found this more to be the opposite in many cases.Eagles: Hotel California, Queen: ANATO,Yes: FRagile,Buena Vista Social Club,just to name a few from the top of my head.Diana Krall's:"When I look into your eyes" however just flat out sucks on MC IMO.
Also not all stereo mixes/recordings/mastering created equal naturaly,my latest example id the new John Coltrane" Blue Train SACD,I prefer the "Ultimate Cd" superrior in every way,the same goes for the DSOTM Cd layer and 2ch SACD layer compared to the 20th aniv CD.
Also some of the stereo fans probably never heard a really good surround set up that is aimed for MC music not HT.
I on the other hand heard some awesome stereo set ups,far supperior to mine,and it is my dream to have a dedicated HT and music systems,the latter would do double duty for MC and stereo sources but no video of any kind.

 

[Brian L]

This is purely a matter of personal taste. There is no right or wrong.

Like Lewis, I prefer MC in almost all instances. It does not matter if the mix is predominantly ambient, or if there are discrete sounds mixed in the rear. To me its all good (one exception: Jeff Becks Blow by Blow SACD just does not work for me in MC. I don't know why, I just do not like it.)

In general I find MC to ultimately more enjoyable, which is really the bottom line. I have enjoyed music more since I got my universal player than at any time in recent memory.

I may never have heard a dream 2CH system, but I doubt that the BEST 2 CH system would prove to me to be as musically involving as even a lesser MC system that was carefully set-up.

We might just as well try to determine the best flavor of ice cream. If you don't like MC, no problem, just stick with the 2CH mix. For me though, hi-rez MC has proven to be a revelation, such that I will always choose the MC if given the choice (like with the new Steely Dan....DVD-A for this guy for sure).

BGL

 

[KeithH]

Nicholas said:

People who buy dvd-a or sacd I think are fooling themselves into enjoying music that isn't what they would really buy if only CDs were available. They just buy the best they can find within the meager 100 disc selection and via placebo think its the greatest thing in the world.

Are you a troll or are you simply lacking enlightment on the subject? Which is it? :rolleyes

Let's see, we have the following artists on SACD:

Miles Davis
Dave Brubeck
Billy Joel
John Coltrane
Aerosmith
Stevie Ray Vaughan
Boston
Peter Gabriel
The Rolling Stones
The Who
Bob Dylan
Michael Jackson
The Police
Alice In Chains
Mariah Carey
Creedence Clearwater Revival
Celine Dion
Gloria Estefan
The Isley Brothers
Heart
Journey
Pink Floyd
Cyndi Lauper
James Taylor
Meat Loaf
Charles Mingus
Santana
Weather Report

On DVD-Audio, we have:

Steely Dan
Fleetwood Mac
Eagles
Foreigner
Hootie & The Blowfish
Metallica
Natalie Merchant
The Doors
Stone Temple Pilots
Chicago
The Beach Boys
Donald Fagen
Queen
Elvis Presley
Linda Ronstadt
Carly Simon
Paul Simon
Eric Clapton
Emerson, Lake & Palmer


This is just a sampling of the artists on SACD and DVD-Audio that no one would ever buy on CD.

Anything else you would like to add? Perhaps you could actually research the subject before posting next time.

 

[NicholasL]

Sorry Rick Brown, didn't mean to be pompous...I guess I phrased my statement a little too rough. But I think you made a good point - that these 2 formats lack appeal to the younger generation (like me, I'm 22). I know such equipment costs a good deal of money, so mostly younger folks can't afford it. But still, it would seem strange that sony, philips, or whoever manufactures dvd-a would neglect half of the population when it's clear that high school students and veterans alike enjoy purchasing music and stereo equipment.

So if your point is true, and I believe it is, then it is utterly pointless for anyone below 40 to buy sacd or dvd-a units because it simply is not worth it, when cds still sound fantastic, cd players and changers are easily had for half what an average priced sacd or dvd-a player costs, AND cds don't do silly mutichannel gimmick "ooh look how cool this is violins on the left" kinda sound which so many people are complaining about.

PS - Keith, when Rick said I was "trolling" I think he meant "tweaking + rolling." So don't jump on the bandwagon and call me a "troll" when you clearly didn't understand what he meant. And as for what you listed...like I said, yeah, there is a selection, but not something I guess post-baby boomers would listen to.

 

[Lewis Besze]

And as for what you listed...like I said, yeah, there is a selection, but not something I guess post-baby boomers would listen to.

 

[Phil A]

The price on universal players to play the music is not all that expensive. The latest Pioneer universal DVA-A/SACD/DVD-V progressive scan player (model 563) can be purchased for under $170, certainly not worlds above the cost of a cheap DVD-V only player. And music available is not limited to what old farts (like me) only like (for all you young people I don't just listen to Lawrence Welk). I would hardly classify groups in the same category as Mr. Welk like Metallica, Stone Temple Pilots, Linkin Park, etc. I would make this reply longer but I am about to go out and get my favorite beer, 'Geritol Light.'

 

[KeithH]

Nicholas said:

don't jump on the bandwagon

I am not a bandwagon jumper. I made the point I wanted to make. Very simply, I read your post and thought it was ridiculous. Anyone who has been here for five minutes could very easily figure out that there are a number of supporters of SACD and DVD-Audio -- people who greatly enjoy the formats and who have spent a good amount of money to enjoy them. To come in here and say that there is nothing good to buy and that people just buy hi-rez music just to have hi-rez music comes off as trolling or as someone wanting to start trouble, plain and simple. There really was nothing useful about your post.