DSOTM - SACD vs DVD-A Debate

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by RetroSmith, Mar 21, 2003.

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

    RetroSmith Forum Hall Of Fame<br>(Formerly Mikey5967) Thread Starter

    Location:
    East Coast
    Well its really interesting to me that they have a glowing surround sound mix...yet they released it in the SACD format. If this board is any indication, most SACD fans DONT HAVE surround systems....they have higher end stereo systems. So this seems almost like a wasted exercise.

    Unless, of course, the two track mix is excellent, then I suppose its worth it.
     
  2. Michael St. Clair

    Michael St. Clair Forum Resident

    Location:
    Funkytown
    Oh, no doubt. If this was released on DVD-A, there would probably be ten times (maybe 100 times!) as many Floyd fans listening to this in surround next week.

    Remember, with the backwards compatible DVD-V layer, everybody with a simple 5.1 home theater system could at least listen to DD5.1 or DTS5.1 for the time being.
     
  3. Ed Bishop

    Ed Bishop Incredibly, I'm still here

    In the interest of fairness(gee whiz, do we have to?:( :D ), in the early days of SACD, stereo units were the basic deck, so many of our members--including The Man himself--probably still have just a stereo-only unit. And, of course, Sony started out with stereo-only titles, a tune they changed when DVD-A put out just enough titles to push them into doing something themselves. Yet the SACD/DVD-A argument has gone way past being old. Truth is, any music lover with broad tastes not already on the bandwagon has to get both, whether that means separate players or a combi deck. I went with the latter for convenience, and it's worked out wonderfully. Not having to worry about what format a title is on is liberating. And once redbook is common to both formats, another wall comes down, meaning everyone can buy the same title assured they can enjoy it. Flexibility is the key to the future. More titles wouldn't hurt either...

    ED:cool:
     
  4. RetroSmith

    RetroSmith Forum Hall Of Fame<br>(Formerly Mikey5967) Thread Starter

    Location:
    East Coast
    DVD


    >>>>>>>Cant agree with this. DVD players are the fastest "Adoption of new technology," EVER. They populated almost twice as fast as Cd players did, largely due to the flood of title available on the market place shortly after players were introduced.

    Everybody has a DVd player these days, especially with Blockbuster going almost all DVD.

    So, there are Zillions of DVD players out there, thats not a problem. I'll agree that there are less 5.1 systems than players, BUT in the last 3 or 4 years, the compact, budget 5.1 systems have sold like Hotcakes. Millions of people have a DVD 5.1 setup these days. Anybody who has one can just pop a DVD-A disk in and hear the surround thru the 5.1 DD layer.

    With a player with Hi quality audio chips, , like the Pioneer 414, the audio thru the DD is fantastic.
    Thats why i'm mystified how Sony twisted arms on DSOTM and how the owners let it happen. They were only hurting themselves by releasing this on SACD.
     
  5. LeeS

    LeeS Music Fan

    Location:
    Atlanta
    GoldenBoy is right though in the sense of established players. According to Sony there are 1 billion + CD players versus 200 million DVD players.

    This is why the backward compatibility of Super Audio is valuable.

    This will diminish over time as consumers get ever increasing number of cheap universal players to choose from. HFR has reported a $300 universal player due out soon from Pioneer.
     
  6. Ed Bishop

    Ed Bishop Incredibly, I'm still here

    The redbook layer is the difference. Rather than hurt themselves, EMI will have put DSOTM in stores that otherwise wouldn't have bothered carrying a title only a percentage of listeners could play back.
    It makes perfect marketing sense, without a doubt.

    Put it this way: if I see the new DSOTM at WallyWorld this coming week, then EMI made the right decision.

    ED:cool:
     
  7. RetroSmith

    RetroSmith Forum Hall Of Fame<br>(Formerly Mikey5967) Thread Starter

    Location:
    East Coast
    Really? that sounds interesting!! i wonder if it will have the digital interconnect for the 5.1 or the 5 analog ports which I friggin HATE. Thats a lot of extra cable for no reason!!
     
  8. RetroSmith

    RetroSmith Forum Hall Of Fame<br>(Formerly Mikey5967) Thread Starter

    Location:
    East Coast
    Redbook

     
  9. Metralla

    Metralla Joined Jan 13, 2002

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Re: DVD

    Sony rightly gauged the importance of this release to their long-term strategy with SACD, and they paid for it to be so. They were wise.

    The owners (Floyd) probably heard what Guthrie did before they signed off on it - one assumes they like what they heard.

    Regards,
    Geoff
     
  10. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    Re: DVD

    Mikey, I've got half a dozen close friends with DVD players. Not one of them has theirs connected to a 5.1 system. Most don't even have them connected to their stereo.

    Also, as someone else pointed out, most people who do have 5.1 setups have them for watching movies, not listening to music.
     
  11. vex

    vex New Member

    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Re: Re: DVD

    This may very well be true, but it doesn't keep them from using it for music, even if it is just a cursory check for "gee, I wonder what this sucker DOES sound like in surround?" Perhaps not the optimum conditions, but at least they could do it.
     
  12. RetroSmith

    RetroSmith Forum Hall Of Fame<br>(Formerly Mikey5967) Thread Starter

    Location:
    East Coast
    Re: Re: DVD


    >>>>>>Not sure what this means. If the system is there, its there for whatever you want to use it for, video or Music or both.
     
  13. Rspaight

    Rspaight New Member

    Location:
    Kentucky
    This is exactly right. I couldn't care less which format makes the most sense from a marketing perspective. All I know is, both (can) sound great, and both work in my Pioneer universal player.

    At the moment, I still prefer SACD hybrids, since they'll work in my other systems (it doesn't make any sense to install a DVD player in my stereo-only rig, since there's no TV there -- I couldn't configure the thing), but when DVD-A/CD hybrids appear that point will be moot.

    Two great tastes that taste great together. :)

    Ryan
     
  14. GabeG

    GabeG New Member

    Location:
    NYC

    I couldn't agree more. I'm sick of arguments of why one is better than the other. In terms of sound quality, they both can sound great.

    I don't buy that PCM is bad and DSD is good and I don't buy that DSD is bad and PCM is good. Menus, multichannel, ultrasonic noise, hybrid -- feh!! I've had it!

    Can we make this a "no format war site"?


    Rant off.

    - Gabe
     
  15. John Carsell

    John Carsell Forum Resident

    Location:
    Northwest Illinois
    I'm with 'ya Gabe.

    I have SACD, but no DVD-A player yet. I've got a couple of DVD-A titles though.

    It's kinda like prefering Coca Cola, but hell if I'm thirsty I'll drink a Pepsi too!
     
  16. Steve Hoffman

    Steve Hoffman Your host Your Host

    I don't mind the discussion. Keep it civil and in the proper thread like this one.
     
  17. Taurus

    Taurus Senior Member

    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    If anybody doubts there are many people out there with 5.1 dvd systems, they should have been watching the overhead stock at Best Buy over the Christmas holiday. Specifically, all those home-theater-in-a-box (HTiB) systems.

    90% of them were gone after X-mas.

    [T]
     
  18. Kyhl

    Kyhl On break

    Location:
    Savage
    And some of that 90% is capable of playing SACD surround. Sony sold them through BBY and probably elsewhere. I know someone that bought one around Christmas and at the time he had no idea what it was. Now maybe he can try it out with DSOTM instead of just movies.

    Personally I don't care which format wins, or if they both succeed. They are both good.
     
  19. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    Re: Re: Re: DVD

    I think what Luke means is that most people don't care enough about the SOUND od DVD to either get this disc or set up their surround sound capability. And the ones that have the surround sound setup, optimize it for movies, not music.
     
  20. RetroSmith

    RetroSmith Forum Hall Of Fame<br>(Formerly Mikey5967) Thread Starter

    Location:
    East Coast
    So its not "optimized". You can still use it to play a DVd-A, it isnt nuerosurgery!!
     
  21. The only people I know that have 5.1 setups attached to their dvd are stereo store clerks.

    I live in Atlanta with 3 million + other people. I work in an office with over 150 people. 5 are musicians on the side, 4 others are in broadcast production, a couple are serious cult tv junkies (Twin Peaks, Six Feet Under, Star Trek, etc.) and three are Mac / PC techs. I swear I am the only guy with a full range surround setup. Almost everybody has a dvd player. I only know of 2 holdouts, they are still using cassettes rather than cd's (and neither buy any newly recorded entertainment). I do not run into multichannel music listeners in record stores either. They all listen to a stereo or prefer mono 45's - there are a few of those folks here.

    Come to think of it, I prefer mono jazz lp's. Hmm . . .

    - - - -

    I am grateful that sacd has 'redbook' as the lowest possible resolution.

    My DVD-A disc of 'Harvest' only has the Dolby Digital stereo for use thru headphones
    (on my rig) and although the bitrate is high, I can easily hear (swirly) signal compression.

    At least most 'redbook' doesn't sound like it is being played underwater.
     
  22. vex

    vex New Member

    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Re: Re: Re: Re: DVD

    There is no distinction between optimizing a surround-sound system for movies or audio if you're doing it right. This, of course, is just my opinion, and it is how I approach optimization of my own system.

    I suppose Joe Sixpack might want to really rattle the house with those explosions in movies, so he just cranks up his subwoofer. I think this the extent to which he is going to "optimize" his system, period.
     
  23. lukpac

    lukpac Senior Member

    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    Re: Re: Re: DVD

    Well, friends, family, etc. Most people I know have their DVD player hooked up to their TV, and that's it.

    My point is that most people get 5.1 to sit down and watch movies. The sound is there, but what's on the screen is the primary part of the experience. I don't know of many people who just want to sit in their home theatre for 45 minutes so they can listen to DSOTM.

    BTW, "theatre" is coming up as misspelled for some reason.
     
  24. Grant

    Grant Life is a rock, but the radio rolled me!

    So, are you saying that sound quality doesn't matter?:confused:
     
  25. dwmann

    dwmann Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Houston TX
    Just because it is POSSIBLE to play something doesn't mean it's worthwhile. I've listened to music over a Best Buy surround-in-a-box, and although the system sounded OK for movies, it sounded like MUD playing music. I couldn't even understand the lyrics half the time.

    The truth is, if a home theater is TRULY optimized for movie playback (according to THX standards), it is NOT optimized to play music, due to the THX dispersion requirements for the surround channels. Music may sound GOOD, but it won't necessarily sound like it is supposed to. AND you're stuck using a subwoofer and sattellites. To listen to multi-channel music the way it is intended to be heard (at least for SACD - I'm not sure about DVD-A) you need 5-6 full range speakers, which would cost a small fortune and could NOT be optimized to THX standards due to THX subwoofer crossover requirements.

    SAD BUT TRUE.

    It's the ONLY thing that makes sense, if you look at what happened with the Stones catalog. Stones discs showed up in stores that didn't know what SACD WAS, and were displayed in the CD section as CDs. CD is still a MUCH larger market. There will ALWAYS be people willing to buy an upgraded version of DSOTM. If it was released on DVD-A it would only be sold where DVD-A is sold (for the most part) and would appeal mainly to audiophiles and people interested in the multi-channel mix. Releasing it on DVD-A only (until DVD-A adds redbook) would have been plain stupid. Like releasing it on a single layer SACD - you kill a MINIMUM of 80% of your potential market without the redbook layer. If they were ONLY going to release it on one format, dual layer SACD was the way to go to reach the most potential buyers.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine