EMI backs DVd-A

Word.

 

There are also numerous engineers who prefer hi-res PCM. I'm not trying to start yet another fight, I just want to make it clear there hasn't been a clear cut winner regarding sound quality yet either. We all may have our preferences, but the fact is they both sound good.

 

Ditto. I went back and forth with Jerry in quite a few emails in the early days when SACDs were coming out every other week and DVD-A was nowhere to be seen. His e-zine simply had no mention of SACD and it made DVD-A sound like the second coming (at the time, several folks on the DCC board were of the same mindset). But that wasn't the news.

The upshot of my correspondence with Jerry? Zip except I was added to his e-newsletter mailing list, which I tried for months to get removed from. I finally sent him a nasty email and he had me removed. I wish people would stop reading audiorevolution.com--it's a disgrace and antithetical to the concept of journalism.

 

On the flipside, I made a CD-R of a few 160 kbps mp3s for a car trip the other day. They sounded damn nice! Maybe it was thre encoder I used, Adobe, but in a car enviornment, I could not tell the difference between those and the CDs from which the tracks came. No peaky midrange, either!

This is many times what the public hears, so they wonder why they need hi-rez when you can't even take it on the road or copy them, and must buy a special player for them. Few people sit in a sweet spot or even keep still for just music anymore.

And, digital has allowed many people to take their attention OFF the medium and playback and just enjoy the music. And most importantly, people just don't have money for just music these days. They have it for DVD-V and games...

Sorry for the seemingly stereotypical statement. I was going by my personal observation and conversations with many people much younger than myself, since I am in a position to interact with hundreds of them every day.

 

The issue that I have with audiorevolution isn't what they do and don't review it's what they report as news. After all, the editorial slant of a magazine (or webzine) is its editor's prerogative. For instance, I love Positive Feedback, but judging from their reviews and editorials, there is no such thing as DVD-A. That's fine, that's their business and I read them knowing their bias.

I might say the the same thing about audiorevolution, they can review whatever they want, but their news stories are a different matter all together. They appear to the uneducated reader as news, when in reality there is very little journalistic integrety behind what is written.

 

And, this goes to one of the main reasons besides the ones I listed above, that the industry has done very little, next to nothing-to advertise, educate, and find reasons for the average Jane and joe to buy into hi-rez. They would rather waste their money on defeatable copyguards for CDs and suing teenyboppers and grandparents. All that money could have gone to more positive and profitable things.

 

At this point, I could care which format "survives", as long as MULTICHANNEL survives, which I am sure it will.

I just hate to hear one of these formats bashed, touted as better, and/or belittled by people here or with "niche" websites, because:

1) WE are the early adoptors

2) WE understand what all of this stuff is and means

3) WE are the people who are buying this stuff

4) If WE don't buy it, ask for it, educate ohters about it, then.....

BYE-BYE HI REZ, hello MP3/4/5/6/7/8


PS = Grant, I already miss your Tonearm/turntable avatar! It was great!

 

Regardless of the relative sonic merits of DVD-A and/or SACD, I just don't see the future centering around spinning discs of ANY sort. Let's face facts:

1. CD sales are down. We all know the various reasons why that is (price, terrible music offerings, competing entertainment, etc.). They won't magically rise again. SACD and DVD-A sales are so negligible as to be practically nonexistent. The music industry is, if not completely dead, at least going to have to resign itself to being scaled-down and forever marginal.

2. DVD-A/SACD are aimed at a niche baby boomer demographic. Plain and simple, they are the only ones who will be interested in these formats. And these hi-rez formats, as currently implemented, fail spectacularly in meeting the needs and desires of the vast majority of the younger generation(s) - most of whom use a computer/ipod setup as their audio player, and quite enjoy creating itunes playlists and transferring songs in and out of their ipods. Will they have any interest in formats which will (stupidly) not even rip and play on their computer? Of course not.

3.

Oxenholme, I really have to question the validity of this statement, as I'm not at all convinced that the "proverbial man in the street" does need hi-rez. Nor do I think he'd care about it either, particularly when his likely stereo setup can't even do proper justice to 44.1/16 CD. The audiophile world seems to be touting surround sound as the hook that will draw in the average person, but my real world observations tell me that the average person doesn't give a damn about surround, doesn't want to make an investment in the needed equipment, and doesn't want to have a roomful of speakers, no matter how cheap s/he can get the setup at Costco or Best Buy.

4.

RE: the distorted generalization above. I have to agree with lennonfan here. And I also want to point out that it's patently untrue that so-called "Generation 'Y'" has no interest in sound quality. It's that they've taken a different - and possibly more fruitful - approach to the traditional "audiophile" paradigm (bigger systems, bigger hardware, bigger $$$, bigger file sizes). Don't believe me? Take a long look at the Hydrogen Audio forums:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org

Here you will find dedicated and very knowledgeable people (most under 30, I would guess) devoted to improving and perfecting compressed audio delivery systems (lossy and lossless alike) - sound quality being their paramount concern. And they are dead serious in their aims. The real improvements and advances in this area (with some astonishing results)have come from young tweakers and programmers and NOT from large companies. Like it or not, THIS is the new hi-fi DIY frontier, ala the hi-fi hobbyists of the 50s and 60s. And this, I am convinced, is where the future is; it's certainly not with SACD or DVD-A.

As to what shape this will all take is anyone's guess, true. But I'd be willing to bet money on the following: smaller, better, more flexible systems ... further convergence of computer/hi-fi ... the freedom to play (encode) your music in any way you see fit. THIS is what people want. Look at what DOES sell.... Hint: ipods, not SACD players.

 

I can point you in the general direction: it was an interview with several mastering engineers and producers in Sound and Vision magazine. I can't remember the exact issue. I vaguely recall that it came out a couple of years ago. I do recall your remarks, though, pretty well. (Something told me even then I'd better pay attention when you spoke. ) You said that of the two formats, you preferred DSD. You also said that you were surprised that what you put into the DSD converters didn't precisely match what came out the other end.

I could be misremembering, of course, but I don't think I got it completely wrong. I do remember asking not long ago on this forum about your DSD mastering in the light of your remarks in the S&V article, and you replied that all your work had been done with much better converters (I think you were speaking of the Meitner converters but I don't recall exactly) and that there were no worries on that account.

Am I with Buckaroo B. in the 8 1/2 dimension? Does any of this ring a bell with you?

SEVERAL MOMENTS LATER....

Ah, found the info on one of Doug's Hoffman interviews page. Here's the link: http://www.netassoc.net/dougspage/HoffHardware.htm. You didn't actually say you preferred DSD to hi-res PCM per se, but I inferred that from your final remarks that DSD was the best digital audio you'd ever heard.

And here's the relevant part:

**Steve commented on SACD DSD in the July/August 2001 edition of Sound and Vision:

"The analog masters that I've tried to use the DSD mastering gear on have come back to me not sounding exactly the way the sounded when I put them in," Hoffman admitted, "which surprised me. I couldn't get a neutral rendition."

He went on to explain, however, that all kinds of variables come into play in a remastering process and that he likes the sound of original DSD recordings.

"If I wanted to make a recording and could choose my medium," he concluded, "it would be SACD. It's the best-sounding digital audio I've ever heard. It just makes everything much more lifelike. But unless Sony helps SACD along, it's going to be strictly an audiophile format."