Will you stick with hirez audio? (1 Viewer)

[Lee Scoggins]

Although there are some very good redbooks (and most of these are due to microphone placement IMHO), I don't completely agree because I feel low rez PCM cannot capture the tonality or transients in acoustic music.

 

[Jean D]

You missed the point I think. Basically I was trying to say, that if I wanted a cheap mix, I would save my money all together on the format and equipment, and just use a decent reciever to do such a "natural sound" mix with regular cd's for me. I just dont feel as though this type of mixing should be used if your trying to impress consumers with the next best thing. As far as the aggressive surround channels go, thats what I consider multi-channel. Maybe my definition isnt exactly what the industries is, but I feel as though Introductory, flagship, demo albums such as DSOTM maybe mislead me to believe that the standard and quality of all multichannel mix's were going to be as aggressive. And in turn I get albums that I feel no effort went into. It'd be nice if they could catagorize Multichannel. Like "Aggressive Multichannel" and "Passive Multichannel", or let me demo an album before I buy. Where is our voice on these issues getting heard where it can be applied? Is there somewhere we can write to?

 

[Rachael B]

Jean, I like "aggressive ambience". How 'bout albums with 2 different M/C mixes???

 

[gene c]

I think the mix is a bigger problem then I thought it would be. Especially with older stuff which is most of what's being released. The problem is we have the original 2 ch mix to compare it to. With 6 ch's at their dissposal, they have more choices to make and more chances for error. Plus, we all like different things. Some passive, some (like me) more aggressive. If I'm going to buy something I already have I'd like there to be a very noticable difference. Quite often there is not. Right here is a good start. Welcome aboard. BTW, nice name! Gene

 

[Paul.S]

Justin:

In your post #69, you said:

Does this approval refer to audio for the video section of the disc (in other words, the equivalent of where DTS and DD are encoded on current DVD-Vs), or does this refer to audio for the audio portion (in other words, the equivalent of where music is encoded on current DVD-As)? My understanding may be pedestrian, but I recall there being two sections for audio on a DVD: one that resides in the video area for use with video content, and one that resides in an audio area that is governed by the DVD-A spec.

The reason I ask is because, color me skeptical, but I'm not convinced at this point that it is completely out of the question that--although MLP has been approved as a codec for audio on HD-DVD--that that means HD-DVD machines will play all MLP-encoded/DVD-A discs. Isn't how the disc is encoded still an issue? For instance, does this not mean that HD-DVD machines will play a movie with an MLP soundtrack, but not necessarily MLP-encoded DVD-A discs, on which the MLP data is encoded in a different area of the disc?

I may be over-complicating things, but parts of the backward compatibility waters are still murky. I wish it was as simple as the standard def DVD spec resoundingly echoing into the hi def era such that all DVD-As and -Vs will have full functionality on HD-DVD machines, but I sense its too early to definitively say . . . ???

-p

 

[Lee Scoggins]

And also for SACD since we have the cheap LSI chips.

 

[Jean D]

Maybe they are playing a cruel joke on us all and next year they will come out with HD-DVD-A, is it not the next logical step? imagine the extras that could come on that?

 

[Paul.S]

And Tosh and Pio have done this (DVD-aligned manus making unis that play SACD). Sony, on the other hand, has not done the converse equivalent.

-p

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Of course not-why support the competition. And neither has Meridian Audio.

 

[Paul.S]

I don't remember (the price made me put a mental block on it), but isn't there a Meridian universal player listed in that S&V chart?

But oh yeah, that's right: for purposes of this thread, we're supposed to assume "Hirez remains a niche among serious music fans and audiophiles and home theater fans and early adopters, ie. it does not widen to a broad audience of citizens."

It's just a problematic premise, Lee, although it makes for alternately interesting/annoying speculation masturbation on an Internet forum.

"Back in the real world," I would think that Sony would very much want to grow the format so as to maximize the royalty possibilities that so obviously play a significant role in their rationale for introducing their various technologies over the years in the first place.

A significant through-line point of my contributions to this thread is that, as interested as I am in SACD, from my perspective Sony is making it difficult for me as a consumer (who likes many of their products and works for a Sony company) to see a clear path to easily staying in the SACD game as we move into the hi def DVD future (which is what you asked people to comment on in this thread--not the hi def issue, but just will we "stick with hi rez").

Bottom line for this camper: again, I'll stick with hi rez, but will hi rez (esp. SACD) stick with me? Inadvertently or proactively enjoining me from buying one, say, $500 machine for all my hi def movie and hi rez music needs is not my idea of "sticking with me."

-p

 

[Lee Scoggins]

How can you say this when BluRay will most likely contain Super Audio musical content?

It's also too early to know that HD-DVD will not have room for DSD in the final spec.

Maybe Super Audio is a bargining chip for Sony. The best future is one in which there is just one media standard for consumers.

 

[Paul.S]

But will Sony be as piss-poor in its hardware support of Blu-ray as they have been with SACD? Will Sony be as seemingly recalcitrant about creating a uni hi def/hi rez player as they have been with uni DVD/SACD? Their current and past behavior does not have me expecting the hi rez/hi def future to be easy on my heart or pocketbook. And you can not ignore/minimize this issue if you are going to simultaneously trumpet the benefits of a single format.

And that pocketbook issue is important: you are seemingly coming from the perspective of someone who will somewhat happily buy multiple dedicated machines, broader market penetration of the format and cost of hardware issues be damned.

I, on the other hand, am very keen on a reasonably-priced single player that meets all of my hi def/hi rez musical needs and interests.

-p

 

[Rachael B]

IMO, as a corporation, Sony's behavior is erratic and they frequently seem self defeating. About 4 years ago, Sony had just over 30% of the world's market for DVD players. Now, after the hi-rez audio drama they have less than 20%, ooouch!

Why? I'd offer up some reasons.

1. offering SACD equiped players that cost more than other brands, maybe some lost sales here.

2. Not suppourting DVD-A. They're losing the coveted higher-end of the market here, I believe. Last time I bought a DVD player I gave the 999ES a look and kept going and ended up with a Denon uni. All I can say is, stupid is as stupid does! Why would anybody let the Sony Corporation impose their playback agenda upon them, and pay good money for that privledge?


3. Sony Corporation has become a bully on many fronts. They've lost alot of dealers. There's no ES dealer in the city I live in anymore. This ain't N.Y.C., but et ain't Bugtussle either. Sony Video signed some sort of inital aggreement with a local dealer I know, about 4 years ago. Then totally BLEW him off and wouldn't take or return his calls. I've heard these tales of So-ny wude-ness for years on end. Sony bullies it's dealers.

Sony bullies it's customers. It's service centres are in-famous. i.e. - a-la the Bristol "house of horrors". Their warranty work is substandard in my experience. IMO, ES components are too good to be left in the hands of Sony "technicans". I'll be very hessitant to send them any more of mine, EVEN IF THEY'RE IN-WARRANTY. :rolleyes

Sony has tried to bully the software market. No So-port all DVD subformats!!! Single-layer SACD's! Their stupid single-layer discs are stille sitting in stores confusing customers and retailers, hurting their own format. If they were all hybrids, the format would have a very different image, I dare say. Then anybody could play them! IMO, they should flush then in a sale or just remove them.

There's alot to like about Sony but dislike too. As a Corporation they seem myopic, un-responsive, sloth-like, and aloof. Oh, and bully-ish! Sum thymes I's thinks we consumers should boycott Sony and Warner, both, to voice our displeasure with their on-going feud...?

 

[Chu Gai]

Sign me up

 

[Rachael B]

Well Chu, that's two of us. That's about like a mosquito bite apiece for the colossuses.

 

[Chu Gai]

Infective though

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I certainly understand that...my hope is that BluRay or HD-DVD machines will enable us to do anything we want for movies and music.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

That may be due to any number of things. You have to be careful to establish a causal relationship. Market shares change for a whole variety of reasons. In DVD machines, everyone's market share has decreased from the entry of the discount Asian brands. Look at the $49 Apex machines at Best Buy. The better analysis would be to isolate all factors not linked to hirez and then look. I suspect hirez had negligible impact on why consumers bought a certain machine...

 

[Darryl]

I have to agree with Lee on this one. You can get a DVD player for $35 at Wal-Mart. Sony will never drop their prices that far (nor will a lot of other brands). IMO Sony has lost market share because of the extreme low end, not from lack of support for high end features.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Thanks!