Let your voice be heard!! TAKE THE DUALDISC SURVEY! (1 Viewer)

[John McM]

why are music snobs so snobby over DualDisc? it irks them that an average person can enjoy high-res music instead of blowing $300 on a SACD player when 90% of your favorite music isn't even available on SACD or DVD-A? like it or not, DualDisc is to SACD/DVD-A what DVD was to laserdisc... taking snobby technology and making it appealing to "normal" people, and people don't want Joe Six Pack to enjoy hearing Back In Black like he's never heard it before.

 

[PaulT]

Well I have to disagree with you there John. A fairly decent Universal player (SACD/DVDA) can be had for 150USD these days. You could 'always' enjoy the DD 5.1 tracks (or dts tracks) on DVDA with 'any' player that has a digital output and can decode DD or dts (probably 99% of the units on the market today).

I think that the public is being fooled (or cheated?) with DualDisc as the content may or may not be surround (read Sony Music/BMG), probably won't be hi-res, and may or may not contain any material on the DVD-V side worth paying the extra dollars for.

There is nothing snobbish in my attitude about this (in my opinion). I have spent quite a bit of money on both DVDA and SACD material 'because I like the sound and quality of those formats',and will not spend 1 dollar on a format that is now 'dumbed down' in quality so a music video can be placed on one side and the other side won't play in my car anyways.

FYI - Back in Black DualDisc is stereo, both sides.

 

[Will_B]

In the case of www.highfidelityreview.com I think it because they don't want to redesign their news page (which currently has SACD on one side and DVDA on the other side).

The snobbery is because they've invested a lot of emotion into the (non-)success of SACD and DVDA.

 

[Justin Lane]

Making an argument about extra dollars is invalid in the case of Dual-Disc. In all the stores I have gone into, Dual Disc is the same price or a buck more than the normal CD release. With video content (which people care about more than 5.1 or Hi-res), the possibility of a 5.1 or Hi-res tracks, Dual Disc is a very compelling product for the buying public and provides more perceived (and actual) value then the typically overpriced plain jane CD.

J

 

[PaulT]

Perhaps where you live

 

[Larry Geller]

This is completely incorrect. DVD was a vast IMPROVEMENT over laserdisc, and as soon as us "snobs" realized that, we dropped LD like a hot potato. DD is most certainly NOT an improvement over SACD or DVD-A, so your analogy doesn't hold.

 

[Phil A]

The question though is for the avg. member of the buying public and whether a single digital connection from a DVD-V player allowing DD surround and getting a CD to boot (assuming the thing works w/o problems) is something they would like better than SACD and DVD-A. There's no question about the quality, Beta was also better than VHS, it came down to convenience to get the product via a rental and recording time, not the quality of the product. So there is some established facts in the marketplace that consumers will go for convenience over quality. There is no question I won't own a DualDisc, but I am not like most of the general public (have some fun)

I still think that many of the products, SACD, DVD-A, DualDisc will remain niche formats until HD DVD takes hold and whatever format ends up winning (if it does in fact end of as a real replacement for DVD) will have multi-channel audio of better quality than DD or DTS available for the audiophile.