would you interested with sdds for home system?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by felix_suwarno, Jun 13, 2002.

  1. felix_suwarno

    felix_suwarno Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2001
    Messages:
    1,523
    Likes Received:
    0
    i know there isnt such a thing, but if they were going to do it...are you guys interested?

    i personally am not.

    dolby5.1 is more than enough. dts is also good, no need for another. but i heard that sdds had more channels...
     
  2. SvenS

    SvenS Second Unit

    Joined:
    May 5, 2002
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very few people would have an interest or the room for a 8.1 audio standard.
     
  3. RichardMA

    RichardMA Second Unit

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2002
    Messages:
    446
    Likes Received:
    0
    SDDS is the best theatrical sound format. I saw
    "Fifth Element" which had a full (8 channel)
    SDDS playback and I have never heard anything to match
    it. DD home/theatrical sound good, about equal, DTS
    theatrical is a mediocre sound format and DTS home
    is superior.
    But in answer to your question, 8 REAL channels instead
    of these backward-thinking matrixed add-ons? You BET
    I'd like SDDS for home use! I've got their theatrical
    set-up software and it's amazingly powerful, too bad
    no software or home decoders to utilize it with!
    -Rich
     
  4. Wes

    Wes Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 1997
    Messages:
    1,190
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Utah USA
    Real Name:
    Wes Peterson
     
  5. Charles J P

    Charles J P Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2000
    Messages:
    2,049
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Omaha, NE
    Real Name:
    CJ Paul
    Yeah, we do not need SDDS at home. It was designed to make up for the shortcomings of DD/DTS in extremely large theaters. There would be no advantage in the home. If you want 8-12.1 then we need a new format to support it. One that supports clear, vertical panning, to provide real 3D sound. After waiting a year to buy a reciever to get EX/ES instead of enjoying what was on the market when I needed one, and then waiting another year to actually have a room where I could set it up, I can say that the formats we have now are fine until somone reaches a whole new level of surround encoding and decoding, not just slapping more channels into the current systems.
     
  6. RichardMA

    RichardMA Second Unit

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2002
    Messages:
    446
    Likes Received:
    0
    The thing is, there is only one new format and that's
    DTS ES Discrete. The others only facilitate a "kind" of
    extra channel(s) environment with poor seperation (relative to DD and DTS/ES/Discrete). Preferring that over real,
    discrete extra channels is questionable.
    Adding two channels to the front, wider and higher also
    improves the "height" effect and the only company that has
    attempted this has been Yamaha, but their channels
    are only for minor effect and are not discrete. The ultimate system will be available when there are two channels in the rear, two on the sides, and five across the front. Right now, the closest you can come to this would be: Yamaha's RX-Z1 system playing DTS ES Discrete which features the hard rear-centre channel and the "matrixed" front high and wide two channels (8.1 channels; 6 discrete, 2 matrix, and the .1 sub channel) or (I don't know if this is even possible) THX Ultra 2 post processing of DTS ES Discrete's rear channel into 2 slightly different rear channels resulting in a kind of 7.1 channel environment.
     
  7. Dan Hitchman

    Dan Hitchman Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 1999
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    0
    No way.

    Sony's use of the same acoustic masking codec as Minidisc in their SDDS system makes it one of the worst sounding of the three formats.

    My vote would be for either MLP 7.1 (24 bit/192 kHz) or DSD 7.1 with stereo back channels.

    Dan
     

Share This Page