Why is DSOM Pink Floyd Not on DVD-A

I wish someone would launch an equally aggressive campaign for DVD-A as Sony employs for SACD. Otherwise the SACD/DVD-A format war might end with the same result as the VHS/Beta/Video2000 format war (the worst format of all won)

With all the disinformation spread by the SACD camp (audiophiles in this forum believe that SACD is good at reproducing transients, which is the opposite of the truth) I am beginning to think that this has become a rather nasty conflict where dirty methods are applied.

On the other hand, both formats are designed to curtail consumer rights and usability of the product, so I should rather shun both of them.

 

It's nice to hear that the production team was able to choose the format they preferred to issue DSOTM on.

When Sony pays for part of the production of a disc, or possibly lowers the cost of any kinds of fees, etc., I personally don't see anything wrong with it. It's not like the production team doesn't have an option between DVD-A and SACD - they do because both formats are available as an option to use and new equipment is available to the public for both. Some may say, well there is little or no choice because the cost to make a DVD-A are higher, especially considering Sony's so-called bribery, but my answer to that is something called competition. If the overall costs to issue something on DVD-A are so much higher than it would be to issue the same title on SACD, and the only reason for the team behind a given album to go with SACD over DVD-A is $$$, then I say the people behind DVD-A are not doing their job in promoting the growth of their format well.

It's also nice to see that a record company can have a supposedly "official" hi-rez digital format, but people involved with a specific album's production can still insist on the format they prefer, whether or not it'll be on the format the label issuing it would prefer.

In all honesty, I hope neither format dies - honest. If I had to choose one of the two to "live", I would choose SACD to survive. I've only had limited exposure to either format from demos, etc., but two things stick out (among other things) in my mind as to why I feel SACD is a superior format compared to DVD-A:

1. From the way I understand how each format's technology works, DSD makes more sense to me, due to it having a basically continous stream of data (kinda resembling analog).

2. I also don't care for the idea of DVD-A's "watermarking" form of copy protection. I just don't understand the point of going out of your way to design a new, high resolution digital format, only to possibly dumb it down a bit with "watermarking". "Watermarking" doesn't just possibly hurt digital copies made from your original, but it can affect the sound of your original straight out of the box. This is not to say that DVD-A sounds "bad" because of the "watermarking", but it makes no sense to me to design a copy protection system for DVD-A that can compromise (even if only a little) the fidelity of what hi-res PCM DVD-A technology could be if left "pure".

It's the final result that counts most though, but in my limited experience to either format, the systems (and of course the music) I've heard either format on were different. That said, in my limited exposure, SACD was a bit more believeable, and "came to life" somewhat more. But it would be nice for both formats to succeed IMO, so that artists/producers/engineers/etc. can work in whichever of the two formats they prefer.

(Edited to add the word "most" in the beginning of my last paragraph.)

 

There's actually a LOT more room an SACDs than there is on DVD-A's.

 

Yes, it's one of the CES 2003 stories on the web at http://www.highfidelityreview.com/news/news.asp?newsnumber=13595489

DTS' DelGrosso's comments were in response to a question about the need for subsidies for new Surround Formats from session moderator Bobby Owsinski, Managing Director of Surround Associates.

 

Brian,

Thanks for the link - superb reporting as usual - somehow I missed this the first time around.

I am so tired of hearing about Sony subsidizing the format like its a big crime. I give them an A for strategy. When they go to all hybrid production, they get an A+.

 

"With all the disinformation spread by the SACD camp (audiophiles in this forum believe that SACD is good at reproducing transients, which is the opposite of the truth)"

Petzi,

What is your evidence that DSD is not good with transients?

I am a working audiophile recoirding engineer and my experience indicates that DSD is far better than PCM at this until maybe you get to 192khz.

We hear the difference particularly well on small jazz ensembles...

 

Agreed -- in the software business during the launch of a new product, software is given away freely to developers to build momentum. I don't see the difference between what Sony is doing vs. how Microsoft does their product launches. The history of capitalism is filled with product launch subsidies.

 

I really wanted to stay out of this discussion, but here goes anyway:

What bothers me about Sony paying for the recording costs is: not that they are paying for it (a good business decision IMO to get things going), BUT this gives the false impression their format is the best because of it's "popularity".

In other words, what starving independent label would pass up such a frigging awesome deal?!

What if Matsushita (Panasonic/Technics parent company) had paid for the first run of dvd-audios? I'll bet a whole box of glazed Dunkin' Donuts we would be seeing dozens of 192kHz stereo dvd-a's in the music racks & Internet music software sites by now.

And everybody keeps saying dvd-audios are expensive to produce. Why??? No one will explain this. Is it the video portions? You know what? There doesn't HAVE to be any video portion on a dvd-audio, not even an on-screen menu! This misconception continues to circulate, aided by simple ignorance & the numerous Sacd Nutz out there. And the schills.............

There are so many people that are in love with sacd's "velvety", analog sound. No problem--to each his own. But personally, I don't like those qualities all that much. "Velvety/analog" translates--to me--as sounding too polite & lacking sparkle. And I've read many others say the same thing. Same thing as speakers: I like Boston Acoustics, some like Klipsch and some like warmer sounding speakers like B&W's and Martin-Logan's. No big deal there.

I will be very interested to see how long Sony's support lasts, and especially, how many labels will continue releasing sacd's afterwards.

And yes, I am upset DSOTM didn't make it onto dvd-audio. I won't hide that fact. I think it would have sounded better than an sacd; it would have sounded damn good in 5.1 DTS form for those folks with existing dvd-video players (AND those lucky people with dvd players in their SUVs & mini-vans); it would have sounded pretty dang good in 5.1 Dolby Digital for those guys with just a little home-theater-in-a-box at college or for those family people that have braces to pay for and mortgages to worry about. And the people with no subwoofer (me) or full-range satellites. Oh yea, a dvd-audio also would have had a HI-RES section with (I'm sure) a 96/24 5.1 track and 192kHz stereo track for us audio/music hobbyists. AND a video portion that I'm sure would have been crammed with neato & far-out Pinkie imagery to go with the music.

Good going EMI. What a stupid & short-sighted decision you made.

[T]

 

Well, we know that DTS is underwriting the cost of DTS 5.1 Music Discs and DVD Audio discs. They told us about it at CES.

Who knows, maybe Panasonic and others are following DTS' lead and underwriting some of the DVD Audio discs that are available, or are planned to be available in the future.

 

I tend to agree with you except:
I don't care about the 24,549th reissue of an album I'm totally burned out on, and:
I have the Alan Parsons surround mix that sounds better than just about everyone elses, because my copy is what the DTS cds are copied from (actually, a copy of my copy) and:
I don't consider this Floyd's finest hour. That would be for me, WYWH or Piper or AHM. I even like Saucerful more than Dark Side. or Animals. Funny how Waters consider Dark Side and the Wall to be their best works when I find them all but unlistenable these days. The Wall is a humorless negative experience beginning to end and Dark Side is played to death to the point of annoyance with me.
I'll wait to see what happens with the other Floyd surround releases.

 

"I have the Alan Parsons surround mix that sounds better than just about everyone elses"

I have reason to doubt this given James Guthrie's admission that latter generation tapes were used on all previous versions of the album...

"I don't consider this Floyd's finest hour."

I personally think it must have touched many people or it would not have charted the longest of any album in the history of music...

Lennonfan, you can always vote with your wallet and not purchase it.

 

If you're after the Alan Parsons mix, tape generation is obviously not one of your major concerns. Maybe he does have the best-sounding AP mix out there.

 

I'm talking about the original Q8.
What's there to doubt? the DTS conversions were (AFAIK) taken from a copy of my tape.

"I don't consider this Floyd's finest hour."

I personally think it must have touched many people or it would not have charted the longest of any album in the history of music...
[/QUOTE]

'many people' were touched by Michael Jackson's Thriller. Big deal.
Just because it charted longest doesn't mean it's the best Floyd lp. Deal with that.

Lennonfan, you can always vote with your wallet and not purchase it. [/QUOTE]

No doubt! I have no plans at all of purchasing it for the 15th time, unless of course it comes out on the superior DVD-A format

 

The ultimate in quality control, something sorely lacking in music production these days.

I say, you go Sony!

 

Two things are as sure as death and taxes.

1) Even if (fingers crossed) the new multichannel is stellar, some people will prefer the Quad. I hope I'm not one of them.

2) Some people who have never heard the Quad will claim the new surround mix is superior.

 

Well Michael, most people like what they are used to. I think more people in the US and UK are used to haering the stereo version, so Guthrie tried to keep it that way. Two reasons I think they wanted to do a brand-new multichannel mix is because they wanted to go all-digital, or they didn't like the old quad mix. In fact, maybe they didn't like the quad mix because it didn't resemble the original stereo mix. Maybe they couldn't find it.

One member says that all they had in Aussie was the quad version. Is that right?!?

 

No.

Regards,
Geoff