Is DVD-A over and done with? (1 Viewer)

[KeithH]

John said:

My experience is that families with home theater setups have them as one solution, music and movies on one system in the family room. Poorly setup, but it's got surround sound so it's cool

I agree with that, however, in my experience, people with surround-sound systems use them for playback of music in stereo. They buy DVD movies and CDs. It seems that surround-sound music doesn't interest them. They listen to music in the background while they are doing other things, so even surround-sound DVDs (i.e., concerts in Dolby Digital or DTS) are not a big draw. Not counting members of this Forum, I don't know anyone who feel a need to sit in the "sweet spot" while listening to music. Obviously, I can't say that the listening and buying habits of people I know mirror the habits of the public as a whole, but I can only tell you what I have seen.
As for the car for surround sound, I have always thought that such implementation is natural. However, I don't know that many people really care. We'll have to wait and see how many DVD-Audio players become available in cars and how much they cost. If major manufacturers put DVD-Audio players in cars even as an option, let alone as a standard feature, then we might be on to something.

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,
You stripped off this highly relevant portion:

Regards,

 

[Philip Hamm]

I'm sorry Phil, but I must disagree. Everyone who heard it on my system noticed the difference, and my setup is mid-range at best. The difference between CD and SACD is huge, and that's without considering the obvious difference when multi-channel is involved.

I agree that the difference is obvious of course in multichannel music.

However, I'm interested in what material people are using to make their determination of "what sounds better". I've only ever used two pieces of music to make the comparison between CD and DVD-A.

(1) Steely Dan: Two Against Nature. This is an impeccably mastered CD, one of the rare examples that really gets everything that you can from the CD format. I compared this with the 96/24 DVD-A on my somewhat modest system. Was there a difference? Yes. Was it dramatic? No.

(2) Queen: A Night at the Opera. I made a CD of the digital 96/24 track quantized down to 44/16 by the sample rate converter in my minidisc deck, and digitally recorded to my PC. I compared the CD with the DVD-A. Same results as above.

Now, I may have tin ears (highly likely), but the difference is more subtle than say the difference between a scratched up old mishandled record played on a misaligned record player with a worn out stylus and a brand new CD was back in the day. Or between a VHS tape and a DVD.

Maybe that's part of the reason that sony's not making hybrid discs. Their SBM CDs often sound stunning.

If I was comparing an older master of the CD with the current DVD-A or SACD I'm sure I'd experience as dramatic a difference as I see when I buy some newly well remastered CDs. Actually, I'm very much looking forward to doing exactly that with my new Queensryche: Empide DVD-A when I get my amplifier back from being repaired.

NP: Third World "The Story's Been Told"

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I agree with that, however, in my experience, people with surround-sound systems use them for playback of music in stereo.

Of course they do since multichannel software is still rare. Whichever new format becomes dominant, I think multichannel will be the "why buy" factor that has the best chance of breaking it out of the audiophile niche. It has much more chance of catching the attention of the average person with an HT set-up than advanced resolution stereo. In any case, we are a long way from knowing how it will really play out.

Regards,

 

[Mike Broadman]

Maybe that's part of the reason that sony's not making hybrid discs. Their SBM CDs often sound stunning.

That's still not gonna stop me from bitching about it.
They could put their best remastered tracks on the CD layer of an SACD, thus creating the perfect disc.
My girlfriend accurately expressed the feeling of a non-hobbyist when I showed are all this cool stuff: "But... it's just sound." We then looked at each other like the other was retarded. It's just two different ways of thinking about it, I guess. In other words, she can kind of understand my obsession with the performances and desire to acquire more music, but not the interest in sound quality and having the same album in different formats.
NP: Charles Mingus, Jazz Symposium: Art of Music & Poetry

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,

While I can't argue with some of this point:

The average consumer is dumb, but even my friends recognize the difference between CD and MP3. More importantly, they find the difference between SACD and CD is tremendous.

On your system (and mine) this is true. The difference between SACD or DVD-Audio and CD will be huge.

Take it down a bit to more real world gear and the difference isn't quite as large.

Now ask yourself, is the average consumer willing to pay for the marginal increase in sonic quality on a typical system? Probably not. It's not something that they value as important to them.

"Stealth upgrades" -- buy this DVD player and get [insert hi-res digital format of your choice here] free will be the avenue for getting this into consumers hands.

Some things to think about.

It's nice to have this back and forth in a constructive, intelligent fashion.

Regards,

 

[John Kotches]

Philip,

One quick point to make...

Steely Dan's 2VN was a 48K digital master, they upsampled to get to 96K. See John Atkinson't analysis in Stereophile (I'm too lazy to get a pointer right now).

Regards,

 

[Larry Geller]

Even in the quad days - there wasn't any Stones, Beatles, Who, Zeppelin, Sinatra, Elvis, all of Motown

Let's not re-write history here to make a point! Elvis & Sinatra were two of the artists with the MOST quad releases. In fact, Aloha From Hawaii was ONLY available in Quad on vinyl (making it the largest selling quad record ever). Motown had many quad releases in Japan (and they also got many more quad Elvis & Sinatra than we did in the US). Also, Sgt. Pepper was mixed for quad (as can be seen on the sleeve in the MFSL Beatle box) in 1973, but it never came out. And if you count solo stuff, you had quads of McCartney, Lennon, Ringo & Bill Wyman.

 

[KeithH]

John, impressing friends who are casual music fans with SACD on our better-than-average systems is one thing. Having them run out and upgrade their systems and/or buy an SACD player is something completely different. In the nearly two years I have had SACD in my home, I have had many friends over for a listen. Most of them are casual about their music. Every one of them came away impressed with my systems and especially impressed with SACD. Not a one of them has upgraded their gear or bought an SACD player. They loved what they heard in my systems, but they have no interest in making the investment in better gear or "re-buying" their music by replacing CDs with SACDs. It's just not that important to them. One of my friends has Paradigm speakers and a Marantz CD changer, obviously not the stuff you buy at Best Buy. He also has a lot of jazz on CD that is out on SACD. Even after hearing my systems and SACD, he didn't upgrade anything. I'm not disappointed. It's not like I was trying to convert them. I'm just sharing my experiences.

 

[John Kotches]

Keith,

Did you mean to address your reply to someone else?

I haven't said anything that disagrees with your latest post.

Regards,

 

[KevinJ]

no who in quad?quadrophinia was recorded quadrophonically btw[don't know though if it was ever released that way except for the film version]

 

[Lee Scoggins]

People just like songs. Is that so bad? And these people are perfectly happy with CD. Why does any hi-rez format have to be jammed down their throats? Why do we need a "marketing campaign" for this? If people are interested in audio they'll look into it, just like they'd look into cooking or skiing or motorcycling or camping or whatever.

I think you need a sedative Phil. No one is forcing anything on the consumer. I am talking about Sony, Philips and labels educating them and making them aware of the difference. That is usually all that is missing. Some people like to be on the leading edge.

 

[Greg Br]

John,

I completely agree with you sentiments. Multi channel is the only way that hi rez will push its way into mainstream. Most people have a HTB type set up. I know that is hard to believe but 99% of the world would consider hi end audio systems a waste. Take the average setup and hi res really does not have the impact. How many of you were blown away by the hi res two channel sacd setups in best buys? Not me. But even on a HTB system, thrown in a 5.1 mix and all of a sudden its a NEW experience.

Greg

 

[Alan_Horner]

This thread seems to have turned into a discussion regarding whether hi-rez formats stand a chance of mass acceptance rather than whether DVD-A specifically will survive. It's the latter point I wanted to address (so please indulge me for a minute or two).
I got into DVD-A simply because it was an option offered as part of a new DVD player I purchased a while back. Well, that and the fact that I love listening to music. Suddenly, I was able to venture out and pick up a few discs (then more and more) and to become genuinely excited about DVD-A.
Unfortunately, the format has received so little support that it's downright embarassing. July 30th was a watershed moment (in my book, anyway) in that two multi-platinum titles by Bonnie Raitt and Linda Ronstadt -- titles which had been set for release previously and postponed -- failed to show. Not that big of a deal, I suppose, except for the fact that their nonappearance has been treated so matter-of-factly that I still haven't seen any mention of what happened to them or when the titles will actually street.
If the DVD-A software companies are simply tossing the names of potential titles into the ring in order to stir up interest without following through, they're making a serious mistake. I can't even begin to understand how these companies would believe that constant no-shows like What's New (whose name takes on a real ironic tone, given this situation) are doing anything but hurting the format. Allowing two high-profile DVD-A titles to simply drop off the radar screen is just unacceptable. And this is the norm! Where is the support needed to make this format viable. Not just in terms of software titles; why can't Warner Bros. add mini-commercials touting DVD-A to its DVD releases (like some companies through mini-ads for film soundtracks)?
I'm sure most will say I'm over-reacting, but I can't escape the feeling that things aren't looking good. The ball has been dropped more than once, and I'm tired of showing up for the date only to be stood up (er, sorry about the mixed metaphors). My enthusiasm for DVD-A has all but disappeared and I wouldn't be able to recommend the format to a friend in any way, shape or form.
I know I don't speak for everyone, but I'll bet there are a few more out there who feel similarly let down. And that can't be a good thing when it comes to the question of whether or not DVD-A is over and done with.

 

[ReggieW]

Alan,

I agree and sympathize with you. It appears that Silverline will be releasing a few dozen titles over the next three months, but I am sadly not interested in any of them. Warner has dropped the ball on several occasions. What happened to Madonna, Paul Simon, The Talking Heads, etc? Warner could at the very least leave an explanation on their site as to why these titles keep appearing and then falling off the radar. It is almost as if they don't care what supporters of the format think. This can't be very good for business at all.

Reg

 

[KeithH]

John,

No, I was addressing you. My previous post was intended to support your post to Lee about SACD and DVD-Audio on lesser systems and what the average listener will or will not buy. In retrospect, perhaps I should have started that post with "John, I agree with you."


Reggie,

As you may know by now, I will not buy any Silverline DVD-Audio discs. They do not include discrete stereo tracks, plus their releases are not interesting to me. Silverline doesn't have the muscle to release studio albums, so we get live albums of big-name artists. I'd love to hear the Stray Cats on DVD-Audio, but I don't want a live recording. Where did these live recordings come from? I just won't support Silverline.

As for Warner, at least Yes Magnification came out on DVD-Audio last week. The title doesn't really interest me, as I prefer newer Yes material (90125, for example), but hey, it's something from Warner.

 

[Mike Broadman]

As for Warner, at least Yes Magnification came out on DVD-Audio last week. The title doesn't really interest me, as I prefer newer Yes material (90125, for example), but hey, it's something from Warner.

Typo? Magnification is their latest album.


NP: John Coltrane, Major Works of John Coltrane, aka, what in the f*** am I listening to?

 

[Al B. C]

 

[KeithH]

Mike, it was not a typo at the time. For some reason, I thought Magnification was an older Yes album. Oops! I didn't know they had a new album out. Somehow, I never heard anything about it. I was in a couple record stores this weekend and didn't see the CD with the new releases. One store had the DVD-Audio disc; that's all I saw.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Al,
Yeah, you probably want to avoid that stuff. It is Coltrane's most dense, difficult, and mind-bogglingly weird music. I love it, but I still scratch my head...

Keith,
Magnification has been out for about a year, so it's not a brand new release, but it's their latest.

Joe Satriani, Strange Beautiful Music