DualDisc may not be "all that" according to this (1 Viewer)

"Majors back off DualDisc"

Whew, what a relief.

Excerpt from above article:


And maybe this means more chances for dvd-audio discs to be in some of those combo packages.

...or SA-CD's to be in the package? I'm stille Dual-y Disc free after all these years, well, however many months...

The idea is neat, but it just hasn't been used properly on most releases. Having the album on the DVD side in 2-channel PCM with one still picture for each song is nothing to get excited about, and must be completely bewildering to those who don't have their DVD players hooked up to a real sound system. They need to drop that and only include audio content if it's hi-res DVD-Audio with a backward-compatible multichannel track, and/or include more VIDEO content. The first DualDisc I bought was Duran Duran's Astronaut, which has the useless PCM audio plus Dolby Digital 5.1, then a short video about the album and a piece on the MAKING of one of the videos, but that actual video isn't included!

The biggest limitation of the format is the DVD side can only be single-layer (at least currently), the better DVD-audio titles are dual-layer so those have to either drop the regular CD or include it as a separate disc. I haven't had any playback problems with any of the titles I bought, but other than to check out what the actual discs look like and how they work there just isn't anything compelling out there. Hire me as a consultant and I'll put together a Dualdisc title that people will WANT.

Oh yeah- like regular CDs, the prices for most of these are just TOO HIGH for what you get. Of course, nobody seems to have figured out that high CD prices are the main reason why fewer people are buying them.

This is good news

Then what was the point in DualDiscs anyway? They're a big annoyance, so I'm glad to see some companies will be laying off of them.

Although they aren't as good as SACD, I don't mind them.. I agree that the problem is that in my experience they haven't been done as well as they could've. When I play a Dualdisc, I want Dolby Surround, not "enhanced stereo" as is on some of the discs. It's also annoying when I pay a premium price for a Foo Figheters double disc set, and one disc is in 5.1 and one isn't. It's like half of a release.

That is EXACTLY what I thought of also when I read that part. All this marketing effort and brouhaha......for what? Because it's "cool"? Some marketing people must think their customers are all a bunch of easily-entertained sheep that will lap up anything that is packaged in bright colors & advertised with loud commercials.

I haven't bought a DualDisc and have no intention of doing so in the future. I would like to try a couple of the Talking Heads surround albums because I've been wanting to try out some of their albums anyway (I like all the stuff they play on the radio) but I will instead order the CD+dvd-audio versions from Amazon in the U.K.

And this has nothing to with the DD format itself but something that really bothers me is that based on customer reviews, the large majority of DD's surround mixes seem to be of the fake ambience variety (i.e. stereo masters simply run through a DSP system), which IMO are detested by most surround music fans, including myself. And based on what I've read & seen myself, the HUGE majority of these particular DDs come from Sony-owned labels and 5.1 Entertainment Group labels (Silverline, etc).* As I've said here before, I truly believe these cheesy mixes have helped to negatively taint many people's opinion of surround music, very possibly causing them to totally blow off the format altogether. :frowning: I've owned two such discs from Silverline, Dishwalla's Opaline and Fireside's Uomini D'onore and IMO these used such blah mixes - I quickly sold them off. FYI: I have yet to encounter any such "fake" mixes on the surround titles I personally own from Warner, DTS Entertainment, or Universal.

BTW: The main reason I wrote that line above about dvd-audio is because dvd-a discs can be pressed at any plant that presses dvd-video discs of which there are many - not so with sacds. And the surround mix's tracks, very probably already in PCM form, can be easily transferred to the dvd-a format via commercially-available/affordable software i.e. without an expensive DSD conversion system, which as far as I know still has to be overseen by Sony representatives while in actual use - this can't exactly be an attractive idea to a busy studio (and having "outsiders" looking over the employees' shoulders must be distracting). And there are the licensing fees for using the sacd format, which I've heard are rather steep. And (keeping in mind I value surround music a bit more than hi-res itself) how many people own dvd-video systems with 5.1 Dolby/DTS playback vs. sacd players? While those lossy formats aren't true high resolution, to many people they can still sound very good. Lots of people have commented that they can barely tell the difference between DTS and MLP tracks on their system. Lastly, there are now several cars with dvd-audio systems available, and there are aftermarket mobile dvd-video systems capable of playing the 5.1 DTS/Dolby tracks. None of these is exactly cheap but at least they are available for purchase; there are no mobile sacd systems I'm aware of. For example, at Circuit City last week I saw & played around with such a player from Panasonic (edit: which according to that site, also plays dvd-audio discs; I must have missed that logo on the player?).

* both companies *do* have surround titles with truly discrete surround mixes (including Silverline's "New Age" sampler which I use to own), but according to what I've read over the years, these seem to make up a tiny minority.

Good stuff.

I also had asked previously what the point of DualDisc was. But my reasoning was slightly different: manufacturing yield.

Let's say the yield for the CD "side" is 90%, and 85% for the DVD-A "side". ("Sides" or individual discs.)

If I sell a two-fer:

Out of 100 CDs, I get 90 good ones, and out of 100 DVD-A's, I get 85 good ones. That's 175 out of 200, or 87.5% yield.

But what happens when you attach them, is that those yields get multiplied: 0.90 x 0.85 = 76.5%.

*That* is the reason why I could never understand DualDisc being marketed over two-fers. Two-fers are cheaper if only because the yields are higher. Plus, gives a person the flexibility, for example, of keeping the CD in their car, and the DVD-A at home for their universal player.

I didn't know about those yield rates - wow. But somehow it doesn't surprise me Sony/Silverline would ignore such things.




And as hard as i've tried, 95% of the worst scratches on my CDs come from using them in the car. Not really because of my in-dash player but just trying to load them in there, placing them back in the CD wallet or jewel case, or falling on the floor (and sometimes forgetting they are there for days) all while trying to drive at the same time.

That's why cd copies are the only thing that should be in cars.

I agree, everything I play in the car is a CD-R. The only time a real CD gets played is on the way back from the store. Not only do the slot players make it easier to scratch things, the temperature exptremes in a car are much more than in a home environment. Over time, I'm not sure it does anyhting positive for the health of the media.

"An NPD study of DualDisc usage published in August found that nearly half of all DualDisc buyers did not realize they were purchasing the configuration until after they left the store."

LOL. Classic.

Said realization hits consumer just after (a) disc becomes stuck in slot-loading car player on way home, or (b) disc refuses to play in ubiquitous, brand-name player in consumer's home stereo system.

Just wait until someone has a piece of hardware break on warranty. It could have nothing to do with DualDisc but might be just that a dealer and manuf. don't want to deal with it but found a reason to avoid going thru the effort. Imagine what's going to happen when someone attempts to press that issue with consumer agencies in various states and the fiasco of hardware and software manuf. pushing the blame back and forth. Won't do anything positive for sagging music sales.

I have but one.

I shall always have one.

Lance- Those are fake yield numbers to show the example. Just that when you slap them together, you multiply them, but if you keep them separate, it's more of an additive thing.

I just think it's funny how much DualDiscs were marketed at the beginning, and then in the end, how quickly they came ... and went. Where are all the DualDisc supporters now?

Kevin: I see. (though I still agree with your example)

Still here! While it is sad to see that Sony will only be releasing "more than 100 DualDisc titles in 2006", that is still better than nothing - and by "nothing" I mean "SACD".

Any format that can deliver multichannel music is fine by me.

Paul, what you LOL at was one of the assets of DualDiscs - that they could be sold as regular CDs, so that those who wanted the multichannel or higher resolution music could get it, and those who did not, need not be concerned (despite the efforts by some to "cry wolf" about incompatibilities).

What is disturbing about the article - disturbing to anyone who wants multichannel music to become available - is that it appears that the music industry is simply disinterested in any new formats, even as the CD heads into oblivion.

SACD = dead. DVDA = dead. DualDisc = next?

Call me sentimental, but I want there to be a format after CD, so I am not at all happy over this news that the industry is experiencing disinterest in DualDiscs, as they experienced disinterest in SACD and in DVDA. Perhaps BluRay will finally get their interest up, but more and more it seems that the music industry is simply content to live out their last days on the old stereo CD format.

I have two dual-discs, and they are very well done. I would buy more, in fact I wouldn't mind if all future releases were dual-disc, as long as the have a dvd-audio side.