Your dvd-audio & sacd players are now (unofficially) "quaint" (1 Viewer)

[LanceJ]

Maybe because there were FOUR competing surround formats.

And the only ones that could offer four true discrete channels were reel-to-reel (expensive!), Q8 (affordable but sound quality itself not always that great) and lastly, the slightly pricey CD-4 vinyl format from JVC.

The other vinyl quad formats, of which "SQ" was by far the most prevalent (and one of the least expensive), all used some form of vague-sounding matrixed surround which for most people didn't exactly provide for a memorable listening experience > stereo with some back fill as an older friend once described it.

So I'm not surprised quad finally quietly disappeared - besides the number of incompatible formats, the technology was either half-baked or it cost too much.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

For CD-4 you had to buy, at a minimum, a new stylus : a normal elliptical stylus would not reproduce the high-frequency subcarrier, and would wear the grooves out. You would probably have to buy a better turntable if you wanted to get good results, because capacitance in the circuits and so forth would, again, kill the subcarrier. Then and only then could you think about getting the CD-4 decoder box, the two additional channels of amplification, and the two additional speakers.

Today, plenty of people have 5.1-channel sound setups already in their homes, with 5.1 channels of amplification to drive them. In fact, they often have dts decoders in their integrated amps, and digital connexions from their CD decks, so they could pop in a dtsCD and listen to surround sound right now. Even a cheap "home theatre in a box" setup will play those.
If DVD-A had been made a part of the DVD specification from the start, rather than just tacked on at the end, or SACD hybrids had been issued instead of standard CDs, one or even both of the two formats might have caught on if only by default [DVD-A in DVD players and SACDs in CD players?].

The market is far different from what it was in the '70s. People want surround sound, they're ready for it, in fact they're used to it with their movies.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Most of us on this forum probably are, but not every "home theatre" is appropriate for surround music formats-- the surround speakers can't be wimpy.

 

[dany]

Sure they can. Mine are B&W601's,small ones and they do just fine.

 

[JeremyErwin]

see that's what I mean: there's a whole market segment that probably would not think of the the B&W 601 as particularly wimpy. (think three inch midranges)

 

[LanceJ]

Small sats with 3 or 4 inch drivers aren't my favorites for music *or* movies, but I think for non-audiophiles they are fine. They'll hear the surround sound - it just won't sound as full/realistic as it should.

 

[Chris Gerhard]

I would like to see figures for home theaters with surround sound. You are discussing surround sound for movies as if a large percentage of homes have that. Is it 15%? I doubt if it is that large based on my acquaintances. The percentage with stereo CD is probably over 90. How well those HTIB systems often seen will work with DVD-A and SACD is also unclear. I think the upcoming formats have the best chance for success but I think will only be small niche markets. I don't think any surround formats will reach the mass market in my lifetime.

Chris

 

[dany]

Isnt a concert DVD a surround format?

 

[Chris Gerhard]

Usually and often it will be Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS, sometimes Dolby Pro-Logic, but whether for movies or concerts, how many have surround sound systems? I am just saying from my experience the percentage of households isn't very high. I am moving into a new neighborhood soon and we will see if it is any different than previous neighborhoods in that regard.

Chris

 

[dany]

I guess the % would be not having one.

 

[LanceJ]

I don't know the percentage among the overall population of who has a 5.1 HTiB, but someone has been buying all those HTiBs - priced from 100 bucks all the way up to $2K - I've seen the past 5+ years the local Circuit Citys, Best Buys, Wal-Marts, Sears stores, etc etc have been selling. I'm one of those weird people that go into these stores to see what the lo-end is like because there's always a few diamonds among the junk: finding good-sounding cheap gear is much more fun than going into a hi-end shop since their gear always sounds good - booooring.

And at least with dvd-audio, those systems can all play these discs......including all those sacd-capable Sony & Philips 5.1 HTiBs.

Christopher: why do you think 5.1 music on HD-DVD/Blu-Ray will do better than what we have now? Unless the music labels change their music offerings and promotional strategies, I just don't see any future for those formats as music carriers. And the hardware is expensive right now, whereas right now we have decent universal sacd/dvd-audio/DiVX/video/CD players for less than $150 & software that many times costs the same as the CD version. So to me the hi-res video formats offer nothing better than what we have right now. Those companies are living in a dream world if they think all of a sudden we're all going to forget all the screw-ups that occurred the past 7 years and just blindly start adopting another set of audio formats (2 *competing* formats.......AGAIN). I for one will not be doing this.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

No, they don't. That is exactly why SACD and DVD-A went nowhere. *Some* of us do. But not most people.

I have so many friends with nice (more or less) displays that use HTiBs, it's ... tragic. In general, people care much more about the viewing experience than the audio.

 

[dany]

Yep,i sold my denon 3300 to a guy at work and he put it in the garage with some speakers he found in the trash. I knife in my heart. I feel like i let a friend{the 3300} down. He thinks it jam'n

 

[JeremyErwin]

does he have a receiver in his living room?

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I think it's ironic in a way. Two years ago, we were all arguing about SACD vs DVD-A. Now, we are all arguing about why they failed.

 

[PaulT]

I have to agree with this (unfortunately). Most of my friends have 50+ inch screens and either HTiB or really mismatched, hooked up wrong, don't know how to work it surround systems (old their old stereo systems).

I'm still running my old Sony 29" CRT with all the money put into the audio! Still keep putting off the TV upgrade, but still keep upgrading the sound

 

[dany]

Yes,an old 2ch and i figured thats where it would go as i helped him buy a 32" tv a couple of years back.

 

[dany]

Not dead yet so failed isnt true as of today. Failed because joe blow isnt buying,yep but we are,are'nt we? Is there a single major brand dropping a DVD-A or SACD player from there lineup?

 

[Arthur S]

Hi Dany

The reason you don't see equipment lists in other people's posts is because equipment lists are prohibited by the rules of this forum. Can you imagine if 63,000 people posted their equipment lists?

Thanks for your understanding and please refrain from this practice in the future.

If you want to post a hot link to your equipment, that is fine.

Thanks again.

 

[JeremyErwin]

I've heard that the best movie audio is to be had with bluray (uncompressed PCM). And, the best part is that any deficiencies in the MPEG-2 stream will be obscured by deficiencies in your display...