-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Who would buy a stereo-only 192kHz dvd-audio?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
38 replies to this topic

#1 of 39 LanceJ

LanceJ

    Producer

  • 3,168 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2002

Posted May 18 2003 - 02:33 PM

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

#2 of 39 David Coleman

David Coleman

    Supporting Actor

  • 757 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 05 2000

Posted May 18 2003 - 02:42 PM

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.

#3 of 39 Javier_Huerta

Javier_Huerta

    Supporting Actor

  • 621 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2002

Posted May 18 2003 - 02:53 PM

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!!!!

Quid, me anxius sum?

#4 of 39 LanceJ

LanceJ

    Producer

  • 3,168 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2002

Posted May 18 2003 - 06:33 PM

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

LJ

#5 of 39 Kevin C Brown

Kevin C Brown

    Producer

  • 5,713 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2000

Posted May 18 2003 - 06:39 PM

I would. Gets closer to true analog. Who wouldn't want that? Even if it is *only* stereo. Posted Image
If it's not worth waiting until the last minute to do, then it's not worth doing.

KevinVision 7.1 ...

#6 of 39 RobBenton

RobBenton

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 159 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 21 2003

Posted May 18 2003 - 08:30 PM

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.

#7 of 39 Dan Joy

Dan Joy

    Supporting Actor

  • 761 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 08 2001

Posted May 19 2003 - 12:33 AM

count me in! I would rather listen to a pristine 2 channel than a mediocre multichannel anydayPosted Image
GO BLACKHAWKS !!!

#8 of 39 Lee Scoggins

Lee Scoggins

    Producer

  • 6,396 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 30 2001
  • Real Name:Lee

Posted May 19 2003 - 01:25 AM

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.

Posted Image
Viewing: Sony KDSXBR150, Sony Bluray S570, ATT Uverse
Listening: Sony SCD777ES, Benchmark DAC1Pre, VPI/Modwright SWP9SE/Lyra Argo, Audio Research Ref3/VT100, Maggie 1.7s

 


#9 of 39 Al B. C

Al B. C

    Supporting Actor

  • 645 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 25 2002

Posted May 19 2003 - 01:40 AM

I'd buy them in a heartbeat Posted Image

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

#10 of 39 Phil A

Phil A

    Screenwriter

  • 2,791 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 01 2000
  • Real Name:Phil
  • LocationCentral FL

Posted May 19 2003 - 02:13 AM

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.

#11 of 39 Javier_Huerta

Javier_Huerta

    Supporting Actor

  • 621 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2002

Posted May 19 2003 - 03:37 AM

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? Posted Image

Quid, me anxius sum?

#12 of 39 Jared_B

Jared_B

    Supporting Actor

  • 583 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001

Posted May 19 2003 - 04:33 AM

Nope.

#13 of 39 John Wes

John Wes

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 202 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 23 2002

Posted May 19 2003 - 04:43 AM

I would buy them in a heartbeat....

#14 of 39 Brian L

Brian L

    Screenwriter

  • 2,882 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 08 1998

Posted May 19 2003 - 04:59 AM

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

#15 of 39 Mike Broadman

Mike Broadman

    Producer

  • 4,956 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 24 2001

Posted May 19 2003 - 05:36 AM

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.

#16 of 39 John Kotches

John Kotches

    Screenwriter

  • 2,636 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 14 2000

Posted May 19 2003 - 06:06 AM

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,
Surround Music Enthusiast / Curmudgeon in Training
Opinions are my own, not representative of the publication I write for.

#17 of 39 Jack Gilvey

Jack Gilvey

    Producer

  • 4,952 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 13 1999

Posted May 19 2003 - 07:21 AM

Then real advantage of the new formats is their multichannel
capabilities. If I really want to listen to something in stereo/mono...gimme vinyl.
SVS Customer Service
http://www.svsound.com
sales@svsound.com
techsupport@svsound.com

#18 of 39 LanceJ

LanceJ

    Producer

  • 3,168 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2002

Posted May 19 2003 - 02:33 PM

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! Posted Image).

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

LJ

#19 of 39 Ricardo C

Ricardo C

    Producer

  • 5,060 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 14 2002

Posted May 19 2003 - 03:54 PM

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

Quote:
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.

Man, an hour wasted on this sig! Thanks, Toshiba! :P

#20 of 39 RobBenton

RobBenton

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 159 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 21 2003

Posted May 19 2003 - 06:00 PM

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).