That one is a tourist class article Phil, but new-bees could gleen some info...? You gotta wonder if the dude has actually heard either format himself? It's not like he ever said wow, when I heard Dave's True Story on that disc I crapped my pants.
Rachael, I agree that it was very basic. I don't talk about accidents at my age as you know what an old man smells like don't you? "Depends." I thought there was some good info such as an SACD or DVD-A does not guarantee better sound. I thought this quote was good:
"Both formats are capable of performing better than the two-decades-old CD format, although they don't always live up to their potentials, said John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile magazine.
"Both can produce very high-quality audio, when done right," Atkinson said. "Inherently, they can sound better than CDs."
Unfortunately, lax recording techniques can negate the technical advantages of the new formats, he said. "
I'd write more but until I get that computer port for the bathroom, I have to go
If you think about it Brian it's always been high definition since the music sampling is faster which produces more information and detail just like the lines of resolution on the TV screen in high-def video. Hirez audio is a fairly analogous process to hidef video creation.
I think that the author, in any event, was using the term to draw an analogy that people would pick up on. I also tell people that hidef video is a good way to think about the hirez formats when I explain to them how it works.
My point was really only relating to the "new to me" nomenclature of "HD Audio". The average shmoe is already mightily confused with all the existing terminology.
If we now start talking about HD Audio, will that further confuse an audience that is just barely coming to terms with DVD-A and SA-CD? And then what will they call audio on a future BlueRay or HD-DVD disc?
Oh well. We have the HTF to clarify all this, right?
Brian, Best Buy and Circuit City employees are already confused. HD Audio should make it worse. Actually I think HD Audio would have been a better name for DVD-A. High Definition Audio vs. Super Audio. Too many don't have a clue as to the difference between a concert DVD and DVD-A and that would have emphasized the capabilities better.
Roger that....but I am afraid its too late to impose a name change without generating additional confusion. Then again, so few people know what a DVD-A is, maybe a relaunch as HD-Audio could work?
The pickings at my local BB have been getting a little thin. Probably just my perception, since there have been very few hi-rez releases lately that I am interested in. Lots and lots of "From the Front Row" Silverline stuff though.
I fondly remember way back in the day, when DSOTM was released on SACD, and heading down there to buy it (Crest Cracks and ALL!). The clerk even knew where it was. A miracle, I say!
This article has the air of one of those deals where the poor guy got assigned the story, started with zero hi-rez knowledge, and had to self-educate on the subject in a week or less. Next week he'll probably be writing about hybrid cars, or iPods. Maybe both at once.
The author did do a good job of explaining some basic digital-audio theory, but on a few details he shoots wide of the mark.
For example, he says SACD was "initially ... a stereo format." And then there's this: "HD audio formats allow music to be recorded and played on the multiple channels of surround-sound systems such as Dolby Digital 5.1." Well, kinda right, but DD is not a system, it's a format.
I'm gonna start calling hi-rez audio HD-Audio. I'm curious how people would respond to such vanacular. I'm gonna just lump SA-CD, DVD-A, DAD, ect, into that category. I like the way it sounds and it seems way catchier to me. Catch a wave...