Just got this "rumor" in the Audiorevolution.com newsletter--i.e., the reporter had "heard" this but couldn't confirm it. Any truth to it? Gardo
OOPS--just saw that romanotrax had already started this thread--Dear Gort, please delete this thread! [And if you have a chance, dear Gort, tell me why I can't delete my own posts!] Gardo
>>>>Yes, I just got that in my mailbox. 3 out of the 5 majors now support DVD-A. If Universal flips, that leaves only Sony with SACD. Uh-oh...sounds like another Betamax situation to me!!
Mikey, I would wait for confirmation before taking an Internet rumor on face value. Are they not leaving out EMI's support of SACD as well? And why the either or language implied by the 3 of 5...many labels support both formats. I looked at Audio Revolution's website. They seem very biased to the DVDA camp. They have done approximately 26 DVDA reviews to 7 for Super Audio. I think we are best to wait on the final result.
True. The article fails to mention that in the Asian market, all 5 of the majors sell SACD discs these days (Sony, Warner, EMI, BMG and Universal). I guess the author thought that was a "minor detail" !
These music companies will support ANYONE with clout enough to tell THEM what to do with their own catalogs, on their artist roster, so what they say in public is to be given a grain of salt, until they do it. The last place I'd want a job with, these days, is a Music Company...unless I was a stock analyst.
Steve, with all due respect to others in here, I hope not ! I have a very large CD and vinyl collection, and I do enjoy all types of music. Respectful of everyone here and the whole purpose of this forum... audiophileness, to me, gets in the way of just "kicking back" and enjoying The Music. Sometimes it becomes so obsessive, it loses sight of the main thing here, the Music. Nothing is perfect. The pursuit of it, when the Power is in someone elses hands, becomes an exercise in futility...and lots of disappointment and negativity. I've cut down on my retail buying lately because there is really nothing out there to buy that's "new". I've shifted, to concentrating to buying motion picture DVD's, and on trading music to get more of my "old time favorites", and I'm beginning a phase of "burning" and frequenting ftp sites, etc.. I'm saving a ton of money. If there was something out there compelling enough to get me into the record store, and increase my retail spending for music, I would be there. As you and others know here, the Music Companies aren't investing in Music, like they used to. So where am I going to go for music ? Where everyone else is...to other people who love music and disaffected by "fad"audio technologies that have NOTHING to do with Music, as much as just being a mirage, and taking my money. That's all this SACD/DVD-A stuff really is. I mean, what is so "compelling" about remastering Music that is going on 50+ years old, to make it sound "better" than it was when it first came out ? Don't we want it to sound like the "original" ? So why do we strive so hard to change it, to make it like the original ? The new technology only "screws it up" even more. It's certainly, NOT the music we remember and Love. Our "mind's eye" knows this is a rip off, but we get sucked in on The Dream...some maniac's "updated" vision. There I feel better.
Hmmmm, i'll leave this alone. But, I kind of see your point. You love music but the sound quality just ain't that important to you. Am I close?
Grant, I want to hear the music the best way that I can, but when "improving" on it, distorts it from what "in my minds eye", I "know" it should really sound like, it's a little ridiculous to me, if what you want is the "original" sound. Sometimes, in all of the analysis, fans lose sight of their ability to just sit down and enjoy the Music. You know, the data on that CD or in the grooves of the vinyl ? I want to learn more about the way sound is reproduced, and manipulated, and share with others, what other people listen to and how they listen to music, and what they think about music releases. That's why I'm here. This is the best place, that I've found, to do all of this. I'm learning something every time I come here.
So, you are an audiophile that is geared towards the music itself. The fact that you want the best sound you can get means that you are, like it or not, an audiophile!
The same or not the same When a great painting is restored, and it no longer looks the way it used to, are those who see it seeing the real thing, or are they seeing what contemporary restoration techniques can accomplish on an old painting?
Re: The same or not the same The best techniques show you what the artist conceived which of course shatters your preconceived notions. Thus, getting you more in touch with the artist as intended. That way the artist's message is less distorted. Isn't that what art is all about? Just because someone abuses the power to distort the signal doesn't make it all bad. By your argument, I suppose you despise restored films on AMC too, huh? IMHO, everything should be available to restore art & metered out in judicious moderation IMHO. Otherwise, one could argue that it should sound like you heard it on some transistor radio on some noisy AM station.
Re: The same or not the same The old phrase "in the eye of the beholder" applies here, or in the case of audio, "in the ears of the listener". Part of the problem is that everyone's experience begins somewhere, and the various origins give us all different impressions as we move through the gallery, so to speak. I first heard Buddy Holly, the Everlys, Frank Sinatra on AM radio, then 45s and Lps, CDs, you all know the media involved. Was each successive release of this material an improvement, when compared to my original memories of them? In my case, mostly they were. But this has as much to do with improving reproduction equipment as anything else. We can't go back in some instances, such as hearing "Bye Bye Love" on a tube GE console as broadcast by a 1000w AM station, but I can play Steve's version today and not doubt for a second that I'm hearing the true beauty of the tune, and that it is the best presentation I have experienced to date. I would say the same of the DCC Sinatra and Nat King Cole issues. On the other hand, I can drag out a beat-up 45 of "I Want to Hold Your Hand", and through all the surface noise still hear the dynamics and power of a performance that hasn't been reproduced in another medium since then. Don't get me wrong, I still hope for another attempt to prove as good or better, but as it was pointed out, we are not in control of what the music industry serves up, except in certain rare cases when capable and like- minded professionals such as Steve Hoffman ask for input and act upon it (come on Zombies!). We all must decide what we like, search out what we think pleases us the most in music, and share opinions so that others try to do the same. This forum is the best place for this I've found! Thanks to Steve and company for letting us hang out here, and for continuing to push the envelope in the quest for best sound. --Roger
Mart, When listening to Tom Hanks, in AMC's recent presentation of "Bachelor Party", I never realized that Hanks had such a squeaky voice! But apparently he and everyone else in the film does, as a result of a goofed-up time compression job! It's screwing like that, that, while the extreme example, is a great example of how "dicking" with the sound ruins the "painting" !
That's a case of abuse. That doesn't mean the process is wrong. It means the processor is wrong. VAST difference.
