Will DVD-Audio Survive (1 Viewer)

[TrevorST]

Well after starting this thread with a minimum amount of knowledge on the subject I must say I have learned a lot from all your input. Going back to my original post and the comment the record company rep made about BETA v VHS. VHS won out even though it was an inferior technology because more companies produced VHS machines, therefore the software companies produced more VHS titles. This is one of the reasons Sony moved into the entertainment industry and may be their trump card this time. If they produce a lot of software for SACD then it may well be the winner.

I don't know which one is the best after following several of the links posted and reading all the input. As I stated im my original post I bought the RP-82 for it's DVD PQ and just bought a DVD-A title to give it a try. I had listened to both SACD and DVD-A in a store but their setup was less than optimum (downright terrible). So I could not tell from that. Having said that i do hope DVD-A can survive as I quite enjoy having liner notes etc. to view while listening.

 

[KeithH]

Lee, yes, I made a partisan statement, however, I included an important disclaimer there.
I use the "GROUP" button on my Technics DVD-A10 remote to switch between DVD-Audio stereo and multi-channel tracks on Warner discs. The GROUP button also works on the Elv1s disc. However, as others here have said, the GROUP button doesn't work on some discs. That's frustrating.

 

[David Coleman]

Universal is owned by Vivendi.

 

[JasonLC]

I will second the awesome sound and possibilities of DTS 96/24!!! I too own the Queen DTS 96/24 DVD-A running through my RP82 to my Sony DA4ES which has onboard DTS 96/24 decoding. The sound on my 7.1 setup will blow you away in the DTS 96/24 5.1 format. Sound much better then the 24/96 MLP 5.1 track. The surround effects sound very realistic like those guys are all singing around your head. I just wish they would start releasing more DTS 96/24 discs because it is an awesome thing to have it all delivered digitally and let my Sony DA4ES do all the bass management etc. GO DTS 96/24, blow DVD-A away like you have blown DD 5.1 away!!!

 

[Tom Lee]

Yes my mistake, was misinformed.

 

[Justin Lane]

DTS 96/24 5.1, IMO, will win out since it's backward compatible, can be used on any DVD player, uses only one digital cable, and allows correct digital bass management to be done by the receiver.

This has even less chance of happening then DVD-A or SACD becoming the mainstream format of choice. For the masses DTS may be fine, but me personally as well as most audiophiles perfer music presented without lossy codecs. DTS will always be a compromise when it come to reproducing a signal faithfully.

J

 

[ReggieW]

Mike,

not a single person on this forum has been able to locate the watermark when asked to point it out. This has been discussed many times in the music area and challenges have been offered for those making the claim to point out the time/track/title out to no avail. I have nearly 40 DVD-A discs and have never heard the watermark. I am young and my hearing is excellent. Secondly, there are one or two exceptions where I prefer the DTS mix to the MLP mix, but this is NOT the norm. Whenever I do BLIND comparisons I nearly always choose the MLP track. Also, how can you make a sweeping statement about DTS 24/96 being a better format when there are very few discs encoded with it? I do agree that hi-res music has hardware/software issues to overcome, but I can most certainly assure you that the future of music is NOT DTS/DD or any other lossy compression scheme. This would simply be a step back technologically. I find that uncompressed music mixes open the stage a lot more than their lossy counterparts. Plus I can listen to a dedicated 24/96 PCM track in stereo, which I listen to more than multi-channel, where I can only listen to a downmix in two-channel if using DTS. Also, there are several new Universal players on the market which do incorporate bass management into their units for DVD-A/SACD. Keep in mind that both formates were developed from the start to be used with full-range speakers. In a nutshell, DTS is FAR from rivaling hi-res PCM or DSD in my modest system, though I do enjoy the few DTS cd's I have.

Reg

 

[Justin Lane]

Perhaps as an audiophile, you heard the water mark? So many so called audiophiles have been outspoken about DTS' 48Khz/20 bit resolution superiority to 44.1Khz/16 bit PCM. Now DTS has matched the resolution with MLP at 96Khz/24 bit. According to many audiophiles, DTS is transparent. Being so should equal MLP. Of course, being an audio enthusiast, I'm not saying the such. I'm only reciting what 'audiophiles' have been preaching to us for years.

Mike,

What are you talking about?

First off please name some DVD-A titles where you have heard watermarking, with specific tracks and times. Until you can do this you are simply spouting off hot air.

Next, DTS has never been considered an audiophile format, especially for music reproduction. Some people perfer DTS for movies, but for music reproduction it will always be a compromise. Since you are intune with the opinions of "audiophiles" you should know stereo is and has been the presentation of choice. Multi-channel is relatively new on the scene, and quite frankly is done wrong many times. How many stereo DTS discs are out there?

You do realize DTS and the MLP used on DVD-A discs are two different beasts? MLP is a lossless format, whereas DTS is a lossy encoding codec. For the best audio presentation, additional encoding is never good. Do you also realize that DVD-A can carry stereo tracks at the 192 kHz sampling rate, something DTS cannot touch.

From your posts it is obvious that you are a DTS fan which is perfectly fine. DTS is a fine alternative for films and those looking to try out 5.1 music, but is not a substitute for the Hi-res PCM found on DVD-A discs.

J

 

[CurtisC]

It would seem there is much confusion about dvd-a.I live in a small town and most people I know love dvd a and have never listened to sacd.I have listened to both,and like both.When I talk to the guy where I buy dvd-a's,he said he only sell's about 2 sacd's a week,and about 30 dvd a's.I never turn on my tv when listening to dvd a,actually with the push of a button I disable video.Also you can change from 2ch to 5.1 just by pushing 1 button.Sony is doing everything it can to push sacd,they need to make a player that play's both.

 

[KeithH]

Mike Up said:

Where are the manufactures? SONY. Oh yeah, Marantz, Pioneer Elite, Onkyo, and Yamaha now have "UNIVERSAL" Players. All these Universal players are $1000 and over. Yeh, that's going to get people to buy. Besides, look at the pathetic selection offered. It sucks. Most are only stereo and not multichannel. IMO, SACD is already dead.

Either you are here simply to start trouble or you are horribly misinformed. Which is it? I won't even address your DTS comments. Justin already did that, and did it well. However, your comments above about SACD must be challenged.
Universal players are coming down in price. As with anything else, universal players as newer technology have been launched on the higher end of the price scale. However, prices are coming down, and fast. When Pioneer launched the first universal player in 2001 -- the DV-AX10 -- it sold for $5000. In 2002, we had a handful of universal players priced between $500 and $1500. Note that the Pioneer Elite DV-45A, released in 2002, retails for $500.
Prices on universal players will continue to come down in 2003. At the CES a couple weeks ago, Zenith announced that it will release the DV-318 universal player this year with an MSRP of $200. In addition, Pioneer announced that it will releae the DV-563A universal player later this year at an MSRP of $270. Last time I checked, $200 and $270, let alone $500, were less than $1000. Perhaps my math is wrong. :rolleyes
Regarding software, here is a rundown of what I think any music enthusiast would regard as high-profile artists that appear on SACD:
Miles Davis
Dave Brubeck
Charles Mingus
Carole King
Celine Dion
Mariah Carey
The Rolling Stones
Bon Jovi
John Coltrane
Creedence Clearwater Revival
Journey
Boston
Diana Krall
Ella Fitzgerald
Louis Armstrong
Duke Ellington
Aerosmith
Bob Dylan (more below)
Alice in Chains
Billy Joel
Herbie Hancock
Billie Holiday
Stan Getz
Stevie Ray Vaughan
The Isley Brothers
The O'Jays
Michael Jackson
Santana
Joe Satriani
Wynton Marsalis
Alison Krauss
James Taylor
Spyro Gyra
Weather Report
Roger Waters
Janis Joplin
In addition, Sony announced that it will release 15 Bob Dylan albums on hybrid SACDs later this year. Also, Universal Music Group will be releasing The Who My Generation on SACD on February 11th. Finally, EMI will be releasing Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon on SACD on March 3rd, the 30th anniversary of the initial release of this landmark title.
Yeah, SACD is dead.

 

[RussKon]

FWIW....cost of relative formats...

at best buy yesterday i picked up a diana krall sacd disc for $15.99..(dual layer hybrid)...and a diana krall dvd-a for $19.99...

all of the dvd-a that best buy had in stock were $19.99 or higher and the sacd's ranged in price from $14.99 to $19.99...

they had about the same number of titles....

sound wise they both sound great....if i can save 4 to 5 bucks, i'll go with the sacd

 

[peter m. wilson]

Hi
i'm betting both will survive and i don't care to argue the technical aspects.

all the recent A/V magazines are touting combi players by people like denon, onkyo and pioneer, an not $3000.00 ones either (although those are available too).

i've been getting dts discs for a couple of years now and really love the 6 channel sound.

It's been proven time and time again that it is software that sells hardware so these major manufacturers are not going to throw there weight behind a format unless they have some pretty good assurances that record companies are going to play ball in both formats.

i also have about 25 dvd-a discs and i think our discussions in the future will be along the line of the quality of the transfer cause in my opinion it's all over the map.

my latest purchase is the denon 5800 (upgraded to 5803) and i'm looking forward to denon's reasonably priced combi comming out in june in canada. i think that it will also have the denon link which will allow a single cable transfer of both formats, (anyone want to buy some interconnects)

all in all i'm pretty excited

peter m.

 

[Justin Lane]

and a diana krall dvd-a for $19.99...

Russ, Diana Krall has yet to come out on DVD-A. What you bought was a DTS Audio disc, which should not be confused with a DVD-A. Your disc should be playable on most CD players with a digital output as well as DVD players. DTS Audio discs usually give very nice presentations for multi-channel (albeit not Hi-res).

J

 

[Mark All]

I must say the marketing and presentation in stores of DVD-A, SACD, and DTS audio discs is pretty weak. Finding the discs should be easier. Weak marketing is hurting sales. In my local Best Buy stores, the DVD-A and DTS discs are mixed in between the DVD-Video music selections and the softcore-porn/documentary selections. The SACDs are over in a separate part of the store with Sony's hardware. And, to top it off, the Rolling Stones hybrid SACDs are mixed in with the regular CDs. I didn't know the Stones discs were in the stores for a couple of weeks because they weren't with the SACDs. On-line buying through Amazon is okay, but they insist on pasting user reviews for many of the titles from the CD versions instead of the SACD versions.

My focus is on what transfers sound good rather than which format will survive. Speaking of formats surviving, I'm still listening to vinyl as well. It's great to have choices.

 

[RussKon]

justin

you are correct! there is still the price issue....

why are all the dvd-a (and dts) discs 4 to 5 dollars more than sacd's?

russ

 

[Mark All]

It seems to be a case of "You get what you pay for" concerning the multi-channel bass-management issue for DVD-A and SACD. DVD-A was indeed designed for full-range speakers situated in four-corners of a listening room, with a center channel to localize vocals and for other effects. "Full-range" seems to be rather subjective for the corners but doesn't necessarily mean down to 20 hz, where usually only the best subwoofers can reach. The center channel doesn't have to be the same size as the four main speakers although it should be voice-matched. A good subwoofer and an Outlaw ICBM ($249) remedies the multi-channel bass-management issue. The DVD-A format itself does not have defective bass-management; the hardware at lower price ranges lacks the ability to implement the format correctly. To date, hardware companies have not put complete bass management on the analog outputs of their inexpensive players for cost-control reasons. Their prices for bass-management equipped players are coming down however. Remember, the cheapest progressive scan DVD player a couple of years ago was around $1K. Both DVD-A and SACD can be enjoyed immensely in two-channel mode in home-theater systems that lack the capability to make the best of the multi-channel formats. I actually prefer the two-channel tracks on many discs that also have surround tracks.

 

[Dave Moritz]

Although both formats are very good and do rival the cd in everyway. IMHO both formats are different as in DVD-A is geared toward multi-channel and SACD is currently geared towards two channel. Not to say that there are not multi-channel SACD's. DVD-A's are very dynamic and have a very detailed sound. DVD-A can sound good on most any system but without bass management can overload small speakers easily. SACD is very dynamic and has a very detailed sound as well but seems to have a warmer sound that DVD-A. In these times where record company executives still have probelms admitting why record sales are poor! I realize that retooling for different formats is exspensive. And that it is also exspensive to go back in the studio and remix and remaster albums for the new high resolution formats. And not every album is going to be worth remastering to the new formars. Ether they will not sell enough to warrent the remastering or the sound quality of the original master is not up to it. I think many people have embrased the dvd format as far as movies goes. Becasue you get a top notch picture and digital surround track for a resonable price. Add to this extras, deleted scences and directors cuts. For years the consumer has been paying top dollar for a media that cost pennies to produce with no extras and for the most part only one or two good songs per tiltle. This is why sales are so poor! As for DVD-A and SACD there is a lack of really good titles that the masses will want to buy. CD's when they first came out had a poor selection but that changed. DVD-A and SACD in order to attract the consumer need quality titles to attract buyers. The price needs to be inline with what peole are willing to spend. The record companies are greedy and they are getting what they deserve. Is this fair to the artist that just want to sale their work, no! This problem of gread is nothing new in the industry and it has been around since Chuck Berry! Now back to the DVD-A and SACD debate. I feel that if the industry backs SACD that one of the big deciding factors will be. The fact that the DVD-A watermark was cracked. Just like the DVD the DVD-A is not a sercurible media to distribute music and movies at this time. SACD for the time being is not in danger of being craked. Movie studio's and record companies are fighting to keep there intilectual property from being pirated globaly. Should studios have the right to make money and protect there titles from being stolen? Yes they have the right to protect there investements and I do not think anyone here would debate this. But record companies should not rip off the consumer and they will continue to suffer as long as the consumer feels ripped off! I give a big tumbs up to movie studios for pricing titles so the average consumer can afford them . This will not boil down to one aswer as why DVD-A or SACD will prevail over the other. Audio especially is very subjective as to what is better. We have seen this year after year. What is better --- Beta vs VHS, LP's vs CD, Mini Disc vs CD, CD vs MP3, DTS vs Dolby Digital and DVD-A vs SACD. The point is that one format at one time has been compaired to a compeating format. And the better format does not allways win or get the backing it deserves. Only the record companies can decide the fate of these competing formats. Only when the record companies finally realize that they are only hurting themselves. By not supporting the formats that can help them sale titles. Only by pricing the tiles so the average joe can afford them. Will the new high resolution format thrive and prosper. As will the record companies that offer there products prosper.

 

[Emil Stoica]

They do know what DVD-A is though.

Please, give me a break. They know what DVD is (read Video) but think DVD-A are the many DVD-V music discs out there (which easily outsell both SACD and DVD-A)

 

[peter m. wilson]

hi
really the OJAY'S with SHIP AHOY.
I loved that when it first came out on lp, then it almost disapeared for a generation.

can't wait
peter m.

 

[Justin Lane]

Maybe you handful of people believe that, but I've been on many audio forums debating on how a lossy format could not be transparent. Every "AUDIOPHILE" I ever debated with stated how DTS was transparent and could offer higher resolution than PCM due to it's higher sampling frequency and bit resolution.

Mike honestly, have you been living under a rock for the past few years. DVD-A and SACD utilize sampling rates beyond DTS today. DTS= lossy encoding codec. 96 kHz DTS= lossy encoding codec. You should come on over the music forum on this board, Audio Asylum, or any other for that matter, and I guarantee you DTS is not being talked about in the least. So stop on by.

J