DarkSide of the Moon in DVD A? (1 Viewer)

[Alex Shk]

I agree that a DVD-A release would make the surround mix accesible to the greater amount of consumers.

I think that the Stones have blazed quite a trail for SACD, I'm sure many artists with thick catalogs are looking at that deal in awe. If I were Floyd, and looking at the bottom line - a deal that included multi-channel SACD with a hybrid CD layer, and the replacement of this version with the existing release would have the most appeal. After all, this would ensure that every CD sale of DSOTM garners them their "new" SACD royalty rate.

Even if they get a "primo" deal for DVD-A, how many discs will be pressed and sold? The SACD deal offers them the highest number of units sold since very person picking up DSOTM to play in the car will be buying the new version.

 

[Justin Lane]

Well that's an unhealthy argument: one title like DSOTM may not convince one to buy a Super Audio player, but getting the best available from CCR, The Stones, The Police, Peter Gabriel, Steely Dan, etc. may do the trick.

What SACD players will anyone buy? Sony no longer offers any low cost SACD only players for the public, and have discontinued the low end players in their ES line (which is not sold in the big retailers anyway). They only offerings are all in one sets or as part of more expensive DVD players sometimes not carried at big retailers either. Most normal people (non HT hobbyists) already own a DVD player and will not buy a new one just to listen to a few SACD. With DVD-A their old player still will give them DSOTM in 5.1, which SACD can never hope to do. Sony better get on the ball and put out some new SACD only players, or they will successfully kill growth in their own format from lack of hardware.

J

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,

There is only one reason that releasing an hybrid SACD vs DVD-Audio makes any sense. It's also the real reason the Stones catalog was remastered (in Stereo only) on SACD -- cash up front. Without the $20 million up front to ABKCO and the Stones, the project would have never happened.

Capacity? DVD-A needs no special lines. Capacity is a non-issue.

The overwhelming majority of consumers don't buy remasters of material already sitting on their shelves.

Let's say that EMI releases this as an hybrid SACD. The audience that can access this material in high resolution is extremely limited, currently less than 1% of US households is SACD capable.

Average consumer takes it home. Sticks it in their CD or DVD player. Plays the disc. Hears no difference from their CD version. Where's the impetus to get an SACD player from this experience? There is none.

So now let's say EMI releases it instead on DVD-A. Average consumer takes it home and puts it in the DVD-V player. A menu pops up and asks whether they want to listen in stereo or surround. They select stereo and are treated to a 24/96K version of the original stereo master. They select surround and are treated to a DD and/or DTS encoded version of the surround mix. Regardless of the mix, they are treated with a slide show along with each song. In addition to the music, also included would be interviews / video footage etc etc etc.

This is a fundamentally different experience.

"Better Sound" is not a selling point to the majority of consumers. Frankly, DVD-A offers better sound as well, with the added bonus that all of the DVD-V players out there could play back the 24/96K tracks in stereo as well as the surround mix.

I'm an enthusiast, and I don't confuse myself with an average consumer. I'll buy it on whatever high resolution format it becomes available on -- with my preference for DVD-Audio.

Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

"Better Sound" is not a selling point to the majority of consumers. Frankly, DVD-A offers better sound as well, with the added bonus that all of the DVD-V players out there could play back the 24/96K tracks in stereo as well as the surround mix.

This is no argument at all as Super Audio offers the same thing plus one more:
1. Hi Rez Stereo
2. Redbook CD
3. Multichannel Hi Rez

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Well I guess Europe is looking good for Super Audio as Sony just announced over 1 million players in Europe have been sold:
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/ne...umber=12038027

 

[John Tillman]

Great thread...

I'm fortunate to be set up with both DVD-A & SACD and I actually have no preference. I do enjoy both. The only fly in the ointment will be when I have to choose one or the other for the car. Hopefully, they will be smart enough to manufacture combi players for the road.

I kind of wondered why the DVD-A camp was including a DTS 5.1 mix, now it is obvious and a DSOTM M/C DTS mix would be accessible by most.

Is SONY in between product or have they purposely removed the low end of their M/C SACD line? Why not leave the lower priced players on the market for an extended cycle?

 

[Justin Lane]

Read the article on the Stones I posted. They chose Super Audio due to better sonics of DSD

I read that article and it is very nebulous in nature as to what flavor of PCM DSD was better then. They mention nothing about sampling rates, so we have to assume they are comparing SACD to regular red book CD. I would hope Sony's successor to CD would actually sound better then CD :rolleyes
I am all for the success of both Hi-res formats and welcome any additions to either format as long as it is done correctly (Hybrids, original and multi-channel mixes, etc.). Some people on this board however, post like they have stakes in a particular company and take an announcement on a format different then their preference as a personal insult. Why can't we just enjoy the music without constant format one upmanship?
J

 

[Phil A]

I don't look at so-called bonus material as a plus vs. quality. For DVD-Vs, I would much prefer the quality that most Superbit DVDs offer vs. something of lesser quality. I don't care whether or not something has a midfi audio 5.1 DTS or DD mix. If I want a concert video, I will buy one, when I want to hear music, I want something that conveys the sense of musicians in real space. Since I don't want to turn on my projector to navigate a menu, I went out a bought a separate small 13 inch TV for that purpose. Certainly not a convenience when one wants to hear music. Just because something has a multi-channel mix does not make it better. I prefer quality over quantity. I would much rather buy an SACD if one were available but if something is out there that betters the CD, I will buy it regardless of format. There are far more CD players at home and in the car than there are DVD players making a hybrid SACD much more compatible vs. a DVD.

 

[Al B. C]

Why would myself, and millions of others, need another redbook copy of DSOTM?

Just because it's a 30th anniversery copy?

That reasoning doesn't fly with me.

Make it 5.1 and make it accessible to more people - hence DVD-A.

 

[Phil A]

It one only has a DVD-A player, one may not want another CD, however, the fact remains that there are more CD players both in the home and the car. If one has both SACD and DVD-A, they may want one or the other, the advantage of a hybrid being it can be played in any CD player, including the car. If one only has SACD player then of course an SACD would be the preferred choice. What will drive the success or failure of either format will be the quality of software available and its preference with the buying public, whether that is the Stones, CCR, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, etc. The demand for multi-channel and compatibility will also come into play in the longevity of the formats, however, without name artists, they have no chance of being anything more than a niche market like a glorified HDCD. I don't see an advantage of being able to hear a DD or DTS 5.1 compressed mix in a DVD-V player vs. being able to carry a hybrid CD anywhere. That is exactly what is wrong with DVD-A, and perhaps why they are considering a CD layer on the other side. They may as well market the current offering as hi-rez DVD-A and in case you like so-so quality you can stick it in a DVD-V player too.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Any fan of Pink Floyd already owns one or more redbook DSotM discs, and most of them have a damned good one (the 25th anniversary). The emphasis here is on the surround mix(es); the band is a proponent of multichannel mixes for this and other albums. More Floyd fans will finally hear this in surround if it is released in DVD-A.
This isn't anything like the Rolling Stones SACDs, where the original redbook discs that most people own sound pretty bad, and the reissue is stereo only (and most people buying the discs don't even know there is an SACD layer)!
Due to these circumstances, it is far more logical to release this on DVD-A if it only comes out on one format. I'd be happy to see it come out on both, but to only release it on SACD would be damned silly. This would only benefit those who's agenda is selling SACD players, and not the typical fan of the music.

 

[Justin Lane]

I don't see an advantage of being able to hear a DD or DTS 5.1 compressed mix in a DVD-V player vs. being able to carry a hybrid CD anywhere.

We don't as enthusiasts because we have the DVD-A players to get the most out of the DVD-A. For the masses DD and DTS are quite good and will give them a multi-channel mix of a favorite disc. Out of every single person I know, not one buys remastered CDs, becuase they view them as a marketing rip off saying things along the lines of "Cd is supposed to be as good as it gets, what could they improve with a remaster?". With Hybrid SACD it will be nothing more then another remaster in the public's eyes, selling very few copies. DVD-A gives you the option to get the multi-channel out to the masses (in DD or DTS), something SACD cannot and probably never will be able to do. For this release DVD-A makes more sense, but if it was going to strictly be another stereo release, it would then be a toss up for me.

In the end it is probably going to be a moot point, becuase every indication points to a DVD-A release with no mention of SACD anywhere. I will be enjoying this disc in whatever format it is offered. I feel bad for those with such a format bias that they deprive themself of good music, but that is their choice.

J

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Due to these circumstances, it is far more logical to release this on DVD-A if it only comes out on one format. I'd be happy to see it come out on both, but to only release it on SACD would be damned silly. This would only benefit those who's agenda is selling SACD players, and not the typical fan of the music.

Michael,
?? I'm not sure I understand your argument, SACD would have the multi-channel version as well so SACD buyers get the surround sound. We are only saying the ability to play on hundreds of millions of CD players is a big plus as well. By the way, no Super Audio players are likely to be sold if the "typical fan of music" is not happy.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

We don't as enthusiasts because we have the DVD-A players to get the most out of the DVD-A. For the masses DD and DTS are quite good and will give them a multi-channel mix of a favorite disc.

Justin,

I have some technical questions for you:

Is it true that every DVD Audio title will have (or can have) DD or DTS information that every DVD video only player can play?

If yes, doesn't that mean that the surround channels will still be in 16/44 sonic quality?

I was under the impression that only DVD Audio players (a much small subset of the DVD players in the US) could do these things...

 

[Phil A]

As Lee noted a hybrid SACD disc can have surround, stereo and a CD layer on it to satisfy fans of multi-channel, hi-rez stereo SACD and a CD layer for use in any CD player. Instead of low rez DD or DTS tracks (on a DVD-A) I would rather see a CD layer or an MP3 of that album plus other MP3 highlighs from the artist's catalog (of other albums) where I could use it with a PC or with one of those hard drive players and circulate music throughout the house. Who with a DVD-A player cares about the sound quality of the DD or DTS track vs. getting DVD-A instead? Who with a DVD-V player is going to pay a premium vs. getting the CD? They already had the CD plus graphics format and it was not a huge hit with the public.

 

[BillSherbon]

quote:
----------------------------
I think Pink Floyd will think hard about their legions of fans and seriously consider that a redbook version must exist.
----------------------------
But so many redbook versions already exist. To most users, yet another redbook release will be ho-hum. However, there is strong interest in a multichannel DSOTM. Since DVD-A would have DD compatable with all the existing DVD-V players, this seems a logical choice.


quote:
----------------------------
Because it is a new remastering with better technology for the transfer. Why buy remastered CDs from the 90s when you have the same title from the 80s. Newer better technology and great resulting sonics.
----------------------------
There have already been remastered Pink Floyd DSOTM in the 90s. By contrast, the ABKO Rolling Stones represented an opportunity for a large improvement over the 80s releases. Sure, a new redbook CD might be marginally better sound quality-wise, but I'm not sure that the percentage improvement over existing Pink Floyd DSOTM in CD redbook would be as much as was for the Stones.

quote:
----------------------------
?? I'm not sure I understand your argument, SACD would have the multi-channel version as well so SACD buyers get the surround sound. We are only saying the ability to play on hundreds of millions of CD players is a big plus as well. By the way, no Super Audio players are likely to be sold if the "typical fan of music" is not happy.
----------------------------
The main point is that a compelling reason for fans to buy yet another release of DSOTM would be multichannel. DVD-A multichannel release offers, by far, greater backwards compatability to the masses by virtue of DD in DVD-V than does multichannel SACD which is available only to those who own a multichannel SACD player. I'm not saying it wouldn't be desirable to release in both multichannel SACD/redbook CD hybrid and DVD-A, but if it were to be one or the other, DVD-A seems like a more logical choice due to its greater surround sound compatibility.


quote:
----------------------------
As Lee noted a hybrid SACD disc can have surround, stereo and a CD layer on it to satisfy fans of multi-channel, hi-rez stereo SACD and a CD layer for use in any CD player.
----------------------------
But the surround is available *only* to those who own a multichannel SACD player.


quote:
----------------------------
Instead of low rez DD or DTS tracks (on a DVD-A) I would rather see a CD layer or an MP3 of that album plus other MP3 highlighs from the artist's catalog (of other albums) where I could use it with a PC or with one of those hard drive players and circulate music throughout the house.
quote:
----------------------------
With DVD-A, you can rip the DD from the DVD-V layer into ac3 files and enjoy the album in DD5.1 from your computer. You can do similar to get 2 channel mp3 if that is the preference. There's a lot you can do with a DVD-A ...


quote:
----------------------------
Who with a DVD-A player cares about the sound quality of the DD or DTS track vs. getting DVD-A instead?
----------------------------
I do. I use my DVD-A in the living room, but in my computer room its nice to still be able to listen via ac3 (DD5.1) files ripped from the DVD-V portion.


quote:
----------------------------
Who with a DVD-V player is going to pay a premium vs. getting the CD?
----------------------------
DVD-A is not priced 'premium' compared to CDs. Yesterday I bought the Door's LA Woman DVD-A at Circuit City for 14 bucks. This was cheaper than then the multichannel SACDs I found there.


quote:
----------------------------
They already had the CD plus graphics format and it was not a huge hit with the public.
----------------------------
Seems like this agrees with the opinion that a key feature for DSOTM this time around is multichannel.

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,

I'm not Justin, but I'll help you out.

I was under the impression that only DVD Audio players (a much small subset of the DVD players in the US) could do these things...

Your impression is incorrect.

Regards,

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,

C'mon John. This compatability issue is HUGE. This is Pink Floyd we are talking about. EMI is going to want to do an issue that everyone can access, not just the small minority that have DVD audio players.

There is no compatability issue, except in your dreams. Put the disc in a DVD player and it will play back. That is the intended compatibility.
How many people try to play their copy of The Wall DVD in their car CD players? Only the truly clueless.
I don't hear much complaining about compatibility issues there.
And once again, I will tell you:
Average consumers don't buy a title because it's remastered. There is no compelling reason to purchase the Hybrid SACD since they will have no ability to access the surround mix.
Further, there's no requirement to purchase a new DVD player to access this disc in surround, which is the real reason for buying this disc.
Regards,

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

Who with a DVD-A player cares about the sound quality of the DD or DTS track vs. getting DVD-A instead? Who with a DVD-V player is going to pay a premium vs. getting the CD?

There is some perceived value to a DVD-V compatible section on the DVD-A which has a surround mix in Dolby Digital and/or DTS, as I've described. We're talking about a brand new 5.1 mix, or a vintage quad mix that has never been heard in a digital format, which can be played on any DVD player. Anyone with a 5.1 setup could be interested in buying it.

 

[Kevin M]

Yeah, I wondered how long it would take for this thread to break down totally into just another DVD-A vs. SACD debate.