2003: The Year of Super Audio?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by LeeS, Jan 1, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    Me too.
     
  2. Vivaldinization

    Vivaldinization Active Member

    This isn't actually true, really...I can't remember where I read it, but VHS won out in the end (get ready for this) because Beta simply couldn't fit as much on a tape as VHS. Beta was "farther ahead" in quality at points, but not universally, and it and VHS were mostly neck and neck. Sony was the victim of a lot of backstabbing, but they did NOT have a "clearly superior" product.

    And the "beta" tapes used for television all of these years are a different (evolutionary) format with a similar name. End of story.

    Sorry for breakin' my silence and all, but I hate seeing this brought up all the time as "the" example of the triumph of marketing over quality.

    D
     
  3. Michael

    Michael I LOVE WIDE S-T-E-R-E-O!

    Way back in the old day's I owned both VHS and BETA machines...The BETA was far superior. Geez that's over 20 years ago! I remember when I was a young lad of 10 I wished I could tape my favorite TV shows! Those old recorders were heavy! Built like tanks. Today's VHS machines are disposable light weight junk. They do have better features though than the old dinosaurs.:)
     
  4. lennonfan

    lennonfan New Member

    Location:
    baltimore maryland
    There are already DVD-A car players on the market. I just read of one installed in a modern Benz.
    At this point, SACD clearly has more titles (tho many are just 2 channel) and DVD-A is still lagging a bit. I also just read an article which states that WEA is planning a major rollout of this format during this new year. If they want it to succeed, they'd better;)
    DVD-A is my preferred format since, with many of my fave titles, more, not less, is better....so I welcome the addition of video options. As a straight DVD-A, the new Elvis 5.1 is hardly different than a cd, no video content or screen action at all, just put the disc on the tray and press play and that's it!
    It's also important to keep in mind that these formats are still in their infancy and like the first cds which were kinda lame for the most part, new techniques explored with the new technology will only grow better with time (of course, leaving out the bad incoming ideas like duophonic quad and mono).
     
  5. GabeG

    GabeG New Member

    Location:
    NYC
    I don't think either DVD-A or SACD will ever be a success in replacing CD. However, I can see DVD-A lasting because it is a subset of DVD-V. More and more players now have DVD-A capability. Panasonic will have a machine that streets for $100 this year. Slowly but surely, people buying new DVD players will be buying the capability. If you don't believe me, think about DTS and the fact that you CAN'T find a player or reciever that doesn't include this capability.

    - Gabe
     
  6. Paul L.

    Paul L. New Member

    Location:
    Earth
    I don't recall any feature that VHS had before Beta, with the exception of longer playing time. Otherwise, Beta would do the R&D, VHS would mimic it months later.

    But in playing time, VHS came out with the longer tape. Beta would respond by coming out with a longer one, then VHS would beat that, until eventually you had 6 hrs of VHS vs 4.5 hrs on Beta, standard length tapes.

    In the normal highest-quality speed (Beta II), Beta had a 50% playing time advantage over VHS's best-quality speed. But most people thought of VHS as a 6-hour tape (slowest speed), not a 2-hour. When blanks were $10, many people opted for lousier quality at less dollars per hour.

    Once VHS got over a 50% share, the war was over. People wanted to go with the format that their friends had, and stores didn't want to carry dual inventory.

    An interesting wrinkle in this, comparing it to the SACD and DVD-A situation, is that with videotapes the same title came out on both competing formats.
     
  7. Paul L.

    Paul L. New Member

    Location:
    Earth
    Gabe,
    The thing with DTS, though, is that the feature is there for movies. DTS audio-only discs sell almost nothing. I'm not sure if they're even made now. I recall quite a few being closed-out fairly recently.
     
  8. GabeG

    GabeG New Member

    Location:
    NYC
    My point is that DVD-A and DVD-V will be indistinguishible from each other. It won't matter what they call it - it'll just play on your machine.

    - Gabe
     
  9. Holy Zoo

    Holy Zoo Gort (Retired) :-)

    Location:
    Santa Cruz
  10. lennonfan

    lennonfan New Member

    Location:
    baltimore maryland
     
  11. Paul L.

    Paul L. New Member

    Location:
    Earth
    lennonfan,
    1. The playing time comparison isn't anywhere near the same situation. It was a nuisance to change a 78 or a 45 every two or three minutes. Less of a nuisance to change a 33 every twenty minutes. But a CD lasts an hour or an hour and a quarter. Plus not only are there changers but remote controls. Plus just because there is more time available, doesn't mean it will be used, since if you had twice as many songs on a disc, your costs would be almost twice as much.

    3. I don't understand what you mean here. On records, yes, but CDs aren't any less or more noisy than DVD-As.
     
  12. lennonfan

    lennonfan New Member

    Location:
    baltimore maryland
    Well, I think it could be argued that there are more digital audible artifacts in cd than DVD-A, which is what I mean by noise. As far as 'quiet surface', this is what I mean. Dead silence is dead silence on either format, LOL.
     
  13. Paul L.

    Paul L. New Member

    Location:
    Earth
    Thanks HZ.

    An apropos quote from the above:

    ***In September 1977, the Saturday Review declared that "Eventually, the public learned to live with two record speeds [33 1/3 and 45 rpm], and doubtless it will also resign itself to two videotape systems." ***
     
  14. LeeS

    LeeS Music Fan Thread Starter

    Location:
    Atlanta
    "Well, I think it could be argued that there are more digital audible artifacts in cd than DVD-A"

    A better way to go may be to argue that high resolution PCM captures more of the music with same or lower noise floor.

    Just a thought.

    I always thought the Beta vs. VHS arguments were sloppy at best, because as you look below the surface the Super Audio phenom is something else entirely.

    Also, consider this: Sony has invested more capital into Super Audio and DSD as a format for both consumer and pro. I think it would be very unlikely that Sony would pull out without a major fight and all recent indications are that traction is gaining...
     
  15. lsupro

    lsupro King of Ignorers

    Location:
    Rocklin, CA
    Back at this time.. Sony couldn't market their way out of a Wet Paper Bag. They had one successful marketing campaign for their televisions. It was the old "what about Sony?" flight. They never gave Beta a chance marketing wise. On the flip side of the coin... I think it was JVC who marketed the hell out of VHS.
     
  16. Graham Start

    Graham Start Forum Resident

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Regarding the Beta vs VHS story: There is one other point that I didn't see mentioned. With a blank VHS tape, you could easily see how much time you got, and it was usually in 30 minute increments. T-120 = 120 minutes at standard play. Beta tapes came in lengths like "L-500" and gave you some really odd total recording time.

    I doubt that this was the deciding factor, but I do believe it was *a* factor. People want what's easier, not what's better.
     
  17. rontokyo

    rontokyo Senior Member

    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    If universal players become the norm [and that's a pretty big if] for both home and the car, would the average consumer even notice if all the majors simply pulled the plug on CD production in favor of either SACD or DVD-A? The only people who would squawk would be guys like me who like to make their own comps, etc. on CD-R.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine