More correctly put, where some hybrid SA-CDs are colocated. At the Best Buy stores in my area, hybrid SA-CDs are not placed with regular CDs that I've ever seen, they are still segregated away from the CD section.
Eric, a DualDisc can include (but not mandatory) DVD-A content. Due to limitations, the amt. of DVD-A content time is ltd. a bit. Also as noted in the other long thread, there can be problems with the thickness and fingerprints vs. other similar media.
While it is not apparently geared towards the consumer market at present, I wonder if it is waiting in the wings in the event DualDisc has too many problems, either with discs not playing in car players as reported in the other thread, recalls, damages/scratches on the DVD side over a much shorter time than normal that make them not playable.
Well at least Warner let us know their plans upfront and I can look over the catalog to see if there's anything missing from my collection that I want before it disappears and gets replaced by DualDisc.
Basically only single inventory Hybrid Sacd's, most of which are not multichannel, like Herman's Hermits, the Animals, the RollingStones. These same discs are also not prominently labeled as being Hybrid Sacd's, you have to know what you are looking for.
I'll almost guarrantee that the labels are purposely NOT listing the hi-res content on DualDiscs so the non-hobbyists won't get confused.
Because if you consciously bought a dvd-audio player, you very probably already know these discs--except Sony's of course--will have a 99.9% chance of having hi-res* tracks on them so people like us will be fine.
But for people that just have dvd-video players, most will not care about hi-res anyway but when they drop a DD into their player......ta da! they hear surround music! And they won't care if it's a compressed format, because remember, iPods and 128kbps MP3s sound fine to them.
You have to think of the Big Picture as far as hi-res is concerned--the people that read & post on forums like this know about hi-res & surround music but most music fans do not. (And I'm saying the next sentence in a positive way) so as far as those people and hi-res are concerned, ignorance is bliss.
* even the common 48kHz/24bit format, while not all that "higher-res" than CD, should sound slightly better because of the longer word length i.e. better level resolution = more accurately constructed analog waveforms
Doesn't hi-res refer to playback when discussing these formats (since CDs have long been mastered above 16 bits) and in that case, 24/48 would constitute hi-res in as much as it is indeed a higher resolution than 16/44.1? I would also argue that, all other things being equal, 24/48 is noticeably better than the same music at 16/44.1 (when I say all other things being equal, I mean same mix, both mastered at higher bitrate/frequency, no "marketing induced" compression on the 16/44.1 version).
Exactly what CDs have been mastered in true 24 bit? The source may have been 24 bit but the CD output isn't. HDCD is only 20 bits and XRCDs are mastered at 20 bit but downsampled to 16 bits. But being mastered and actually outputting the true bit depth are different.
When something is mastered at a higher bitrate than CD's 16 bit specification, technically it should sound better. This is because during the post-production phase--EQ, compression (not all compression is bad), special effects, etc--those extra bits make up for the various equipment's processing errors i.e. it provides a cushion for these errors before they can get to the 16th bit. I think that the dithering process is involved here too, but you'll have to ask someone more informed about this for a good answer about that.
Anyway, when the 24 bit signal is finally reduced down to 16 bits for transfer to the Compact Disc format, the signal that results is a "cleaner" one than a 16 bit one that went through the post-production equipment wringer.
That is fine but a disc that is actually outputting the full 24 bit signal without ever dithering down will be better as there was no compromise made. Keeping the full 24 bits intact through the entire process is the way to go, hence the advantage with DVD-A even at 44.1/24.
Thx for the link, Paul. My man Massenburg served on one of the panels the article reports on. May be reading too much into it/it may just be less-than-complete reportage, but the comment generally attributed to (not quoted from) him about SACD sales is interesting to me: 'SACD sales simply did not happen.' Wonder why he supposedly made that comment only about SACD? SACD's sales numbers haven't been remarkably slower than DVD-A sales, esp. if you (problematically, I know) include (unlabeled) hybrids. I think most of Massenburg's surround remixes have been released on DVD-A (What's New, Little Criminals). Was that a mild, partisan dis? Hmm.
Esp. given the scratch susceptibility Ken Richardson mentions in the latest S&V and which I quote in the "DualDisc Unvelied To Retailers" thread, I continue to be interested in SACD and DVD-A over Dual. I guess I'm okay in terms of getting my hands on what I want as long as Amazon continues to stock the titles I have on my long azz Wish List? I suppose we should be vigilant at this point about titles being discontinued and their prices perhaps therefore rising?
It sounded to me like these engineers--who are in positions to know, since they know whether they are or are not working on a current surround/DVD-A/SACD project--were talking about the sun setting on DVD-A/SACD as though it were a done deal . . .??
I suppose I could start another thread, but I'm sure this article in the same publication and linked to on the same page as the one referenced in PaulDA's first post of this thread and which is about a different seminar at the same Audio Engineering Society convention will attract some of the same Music area Usual Suspects. We know who we are.
This seminar was entitled "High Resolution Audio In an Age of Universal Playback" and Stereophile's article is entitled Is There A Future For Hi Rez?.