Who would buy a stereo-only 192kHz dvd-audio? (1 Viewer)

[LanceJ]

I'm asking this because it looks like there are finally some "decent" 192kHz ADCs available for the studios to use. I say that because of some comments made here by Dr. Mark Waldrep about his new dvd-audio sampler, and the fact that the new Steely Dan dvd-audio contains a 192kHz track.

Also, I had read of a rumor on AA last year about Warner thinking about creating some stereo 192 titles, but no one ever confirmed this.

Another advantage to this approach--no menus to worry about.

As I've said several times here, I KNOW not all music benefits from the surround format. I have been checking out folk music the last few months and much of it is very simply arranged: vocalist/guitar/piano for example. Or just vocalist and a mandolin. Etc., etc. This creates a very intimate atmosphere to better communicate strong emotions, or complicated political or philosophical concepts. Multichannel I think would be too "big" sounding, so stereo would be the best choice.

And I have read of where certain artists just plain don't like multichannel music & won't allow their albums to be converted.

Thoughts, anybody?

LJ

 

[David Coleman]

I would purchase if it was an older recording or a recording that didn't lend itself to multi-channel. 24/196 sounds tremendous by the one i've heard (Grover Washington Jr.- Winelight) and i'm anxious to hear more!! Just make sure they put some nice extras on the disc and put a second 24/96 on the DVD-V portion.

 

[Javier_Huerta]

I'd definitely support pure 24/192 audio for older recordings. I do enjoy music remixed in surround when the original artists have some input (DSOTM, Queen's "The Game" and "A Day at the Races"), but surround sound sometimes sounds terribly, incredibly bad when applied to old recordings (whomever did the surround mix for the Moody Blues' "Days of Future Passed" deserves to have to listen to Barney's "I love you, you love me" anthem for LIFE).

Just... get rid of the menus. Please. Be it in 24/192, 24/96 multichannel, direct SACD or whatever, get rid of those damned things!!!!

 

[LanceJ]

And I'm also asking just in case any dvd-audio labels are reading this forum.

LJ

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I would. Gets closer to true analog. Who wouldn't want that? Even if it is *only* stereo.

 

[RobBenton]

Just to be fair menus arent needed for DVD-a currently. I hardly ever use my TV to listen to DVD-a. I just put it in and it plays.

 

[Dan Joy]

count me in! I would rather listen to a pristine 2 channel than a mediocre multichannel anyday

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I would definitely welcome any 24/192. I have been working with some of these recordings and they get pretty close to DSD in terms of sonics.

I am anxiously awaiting the new Steely Dan recording.

Also, remember that good two channel can be as enveloping as a multi-channel recording and you generally get a more realistic soundstage.

 

[Al B. C]

I'd buy them in a heartbeat

Me and M/C haven't been getting along all that well lately, anyway.

 

[Phil A]

Of course I would buy it if it consisted of music I like. I've already bought a 96/24 stereo only title (Leon Russell on Hi-Res Music) which is superb.

 

[Javier_Huerta]

I own Alan Parsons' "I Robot" in 24/96.

The difference between this version and the CD version is a delight. I have been discussing the issues over the time the recording has been out with some other members of Alan Parsons' mailing list, and while no consensus has been reached (whether the sonic benefits derive from a more benign low-pass filter on the analogue stages or the extra fidelity from higher resolution), one thing is certain. We would all love to have his entire back-catalogue remastered in hi-def.

Which may never happen, since it seems not enough people may pay for new remasters.

Where's MoFi / DCC Classics when you need them?

 

[Jared_B]

Nope.

 

[John Wes]

I would buy them in a heartbeat....

 

[Brian L]

It would really depend on the recording, and how much of a woody I had for it.

I (as many of us did) bought some of the Rolling Stones SACD releases which are stereo only, and they sound great. I would equate the question of 192K stereo DVD-A with that.

Stuff like Yes, Floyd, and ELP are killer is surround (prog rock and its ilk was INVENTED for surround, IMHO), but stuff like the early Stones (or any other studio recorded early rock) I think are just fine (and perhaps preferable) in 2CH.

Again though, it would depend on the music.

But why should we have to choose? Can't we get both 192 Stereo and Hi-rez surround, and let the user decide AFTER the purchase? Guess I am just a greedy mofo....I want it all, and I want it right now, please.

BGL

 

[Mike Broadman]

I have a few DADs of older jazz and blues recordings in 96/24 and love them. Naturally, an even higer sampling rate would be welcome.

 

[John Kotches]

There are two reason I would buy such a disc:

1) The artist does not want their material remixed to surround.

2) The original multi-track tapes are not available or the condition of them has deteriorated too much to get acceptable source material for multi-channel remixing.

Regards,

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Then real advantage of the new formats is their multichannel
capabilities. If I really want to listen to something in stereo/mono...gimme vinyl.

 

[LanceJ]

Another reason for a stereo-only release is the fact no remixing is needed so they could be put out faster (remastering is another subject: has anybody else noticed how much better "Fragile's" multichannel SOUND was? Even in DTS form I could hear small things in the front channels better than the 96/24 MLP stereo track. And in the 5.1 track, those two electronic beeping noises in "Roundabout" were finally taken out--woohoo!!! They have been driving me nuts for years! ).

Jared: why "nope"? (one guess: lack of a high-quality dvd-audio player?)

LJ

 

[Ricardo C]

If the record was originally intended for stereo, and the artist doesn't wish to see it remixed to multi-channel, ABSO-FRIGGIN-LUTELY

Then real advantage of the new formats is their multichannel
capabilities. If I really want to listen to something in stereo/mono...gimme vinyl.

I'm new to DAD-A and SACD, but I thought the primary advantage of the new formats was the possibility for higher-resolution sound. I don't want to have a surround mix of an album that wasn't intended to be experienced that way. Unless the artists themselves are involved in the process, as is the case with bands like Queen.

 

[RobBenton]

You can't always have the artists involved in the 5.1 mix and while i agree it might be ideal I don't think it is neccasary. As far as why the formats are there it depends on who you ask. I think the general public will buy into it for 5.1 but audiophiles will buy it for higher quality sound (or both).